header-logo header-logo

03 May 2012
Issue: 7512 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Negligence

Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] All ER (D) 123 (Apr)

There was no imposition or assumption of responsibility by reason only that a company was the parent company of another company. The question was whether what the parent company had done amounted to taking on a direct duty to the subsidiary’s employees. In appropriate circumstances, the law might impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary’s employees.

Those circumstances included a situation where: (i) the business of the parent and subsidiary were in a relevant respect the same; (ii) the parent had, or ought to have had, superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry; (iii) the subsidiary’s system of work was unsafe as the parent company knew, or ought to have known; and (iv) the parent had known or ought to have foreseen that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on its using that superior knowledge for the employee’s protection. For the purposes of the final issue, it was not

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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll