23 June 2011 / Robert O'Leary

Issue: 7471 / Categories: Features , Personal injury

printer

mail-detail

Loud & clear?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robert O’Leary outlines the impact of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

In the first industrial deafness case to reach the Supreme Court—Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and others [2011] UKSC 17, [2011] All ER (D) 137 (Apr)—the court found in favour of the appellant employers by a majority of 3:2. In the process, the long-standing Court of Appeal authority on the interpretation of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961), s 29, Larner v British Steel [1993] 4 All ER 102, [1993] ICR 551 was overruled. The decision could potentially have a marked impact on personal injury claims.

Section 29

Section 29 of FaA 1961, provides that “every place at which any person has at any time to work…shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for any person working there”.
The appellants argued that s 29 applied only to the structure and fabric of factory premises and not to processes carried on there. Noise, it was argued, required someone to be exposed for many years to suffer material injury.

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

Loud & clear?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robert O’Leary outlines the impact of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

In the first industrial deafness case to reach the Supreme Court—Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and others [2011] UKSC 17, [2011] All ER (D) 137 (Apr)—the court found in favour of the appellant employers by a majority of 3:2. In the process, the long-standing Court of Appeal authority on the interpretation of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961), s 29, Larner v British Steel [1993] 4 All ER 102, [1993] ICR 551 was overruled. The decision could potentially have a marked impact on personal injury claims.

Section 29

Section 29 of FaA 1961, provides that “every place at which any person has at any time to work…shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for any person working there”.
The appellants argued that s 29 applied only to the structure and fabric of factory premises and not to processes carried on there. Noise, it was argued, required someone to be exposed for many years to suffer material injury.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

back-to-top-scroll