header-logo header-logo

Employers win out on noise

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll