||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 123 (Apr)
|| EWCA Civ 525
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Arden, Moses and McFarlane LJJ
||Robert Weir QC, Simon Levene and Sudhanshu Swaroop (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the claimant.
||Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC and Charles Feeny (instructed by Greenwoods) for the defendant.
||25 April 2012
Negligence - Duty to take care - Existence of duty - Exposure to asbestos dust - Claimant exposed to asbestos dust during courses of employment with CBP - CBP ceasing to exist and claimant issuing proceedings against defendant parent company - Judge finding defendant assumed responsibility for duty of care to claimant - Whether judge erring.
Negligence Duty to take care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal against a finding that the defendant parent company had assumed responsibility for the claimant employee of its subsidiary where the claimant had contracted asbestosis by reason of his employment, held that in appropriate circumstances, the law might impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary's employees. The question was whether what the parent company had done amounted to taking on a direct duty to the subsidiary's employees.
- 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
- 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
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases