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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll