||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 157 (Apr)
|| EWHC 951 (QB)
||Queen's Bench Division
Wyn Williams J
||Robert Weir QC & Simon Levene (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the claimant.
||Charles Feeny (instructed by Clarke Wilmot Solicitors) for the defendant.
||14 April 2011
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.
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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases