header-logo header-logo

14 June 2012 / Rehana Azib
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Health & wealth

Rehana Azib examines recent decisions on liability & quantum

There have been two interesting decisions in the area of employer’s liability and health and safety, both for and against employers.

Employers liability

David Brian Chandler v Cape plc In David Brian Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] All ER (D) 123 (Apr), an asbestos exposure case, the Court of Appeal outlined the circumstances in which it could impose responsibility on a parent company for the health and safety of employees of a subsidiary company which was no longer in existence.

In this case, the subsidiary company was in the business of manufacturing incombustible asbestos and while in its employment, the claimant was exposed to asbestos dust and later contracted asbestosis, some 45 years after his employment with the company had ended. Unfortunately, the company had had no policy of insurance that would indemnify it against claims for asbestosis (the claimant’s employment pre-dated the Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969). The claimant issued proceedings against the parent company

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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll