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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll