header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employers win out on noise

A knitting company was not responsible for an employee’s noise-induced loss of hearing where noise levels did not exceed the threshold for protection, the Supreme Court has held.

Stephanie Baker worked for 18 years until 1989. She left before 1 January 1990, the date when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 came into force.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17 centred on whether liability exists at common law or under s 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, towards an employee who can establish noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise levels between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd.
 

Before 1990, employers applied the 1971 Code of Practice on Noise which required them to protect employees from noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

Baker, who suffered tinnitus and hearing loss, claimed her former employer, Quantum Clothing Group, was liable for not providing hearing protection. At the time of her employment, the noise levels in Quantum’s factory did not exceed 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

The Supreme Court ruled that Quantum did not breach its common law or statutory duty of care towards its employee. It said Quantum had no duty to act at levels of 90 dBA (Lepd) before the introduction of the 1989 regulations.
Baker v Quantum, or “the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Textile deafness litigation” as the case is widely known, originally concerned 10 test claims of hearing loss.
 

Jim Byard, Weightmans’ head of disease, who acted for Quantum on instruction by Zurich Insurance, said: “This is a hugely important decision. Had the Supreme Court found in favour of Mrs Baker, the floodgates for tens of thousands of noise induced hearing loss claims would have opened.

“Employers must be able to rely on official guidance documents such as the Code of Practice on Noise without fear that the courts will subsequently reinterpret the law in the form of retrospective legislation.”

Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis wills and probate team extends reach with two appointments

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll