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

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.