header-logo header-logo

A fair hearing?

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll