header-logo header-logo

09 December 2010 / Theo Huckle KC
Issue: 7445 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A fair hearing?

Theo Huckle reports on industrial diseases & employer liability

The Supreme Court heard argument in Baker v Quantum last month. The case, arising from the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation, concerns employer’s liability for noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) caused by long-term occupational noise exposure.

Miss Baker worked as a sewing machinist within the Coats group from 1971 to 1989 when she was provided with and wore ear plugs. The following year the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1790) provided that employers must at least offer hearing protection to those exposed at 85 dB(A)  (the accepted average of sound levels taken over the main human hearing frequencies) averaged over the standard eight hour working day, with mandatory provision above 90 dB(A). 

Adopting “action levels” of this type is, however, somewhat simplistic, since much depends upon the length of time in weeks and years to which the person is exposed to the particular noise level. In the case of sewing machinists like Miss Baker, the period was commonly a working life of 25

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll