Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 157 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division
Judge: Wyn Williams J
Representation Robert Weir QC & Simon Levene (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the claimant.
  Charles Feeny (instructed by Clarke Wilmot Solicitors) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 14 April 2011

Catchwords

Negligence - Duty to take care - Existence of duty - Exposure to asbestos dust - Claimant exposed to asbestos dust during courses of employment with CBPL - CBPL ceasing to exist and claimant issuing proceedings against defendant parent company - Defendant accepting breach of duty of care if claimant establishing duty of care owed to him - Whether claimant establishing defendant owed to him a duty of care.

The Case

Negligence Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the three-stage test for the imposition of a duty of care had been satisfied on the claimant's claim for damages for contracting asbestosis as a consequence of exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment with a subsidiary of the defendant company. As the defendant had accepted that it had been in breach of duty if it was established that it had owed a duty of care to the claimant, judgment was entered in favour of the claimant for an award of provisional damages.

Practice Areas

The judgment for this case is forthcoming.

What is the full transcript