Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd
[2011] UKSC 17
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Whether a workplace is safe for the purposes of section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961 is a relative concept, to be judged according to the general knowledge and standards of the times; foreseeability of risk is therefore relevant both to safety and to the reasonable practicability qualification, and the onus is on the employee to show that the workplace was unsafe by contemporary standards. At common law an employer without greater than average knowledge was entitled during the 1970s and 1980s to rely on the official 1972 Code of Practice, which treated 90dB(A) as the level requiring action, as an acceptable standard.
Facts
Test claims were brought by employees in the Derbyshire and Nottingham knitting industry for noise-induced hearing loss caused by exposure before 1 January 1990, when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 came into force; the central issue was liability for exposure between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd. Mrs Baker worked in a factory in Sutton in Ashfield from 1971 (when she was 15) to 2001 and was found to have been exposed for 18 years to noise around 85dB(A)lepd, sustaining slight noise-induced hearing loss. His Honour Judge Inglis dismissed her claim, holding the 1972 Code of Practice an acceptable standard for reasonable and prudent employers, but the Court of Appeal held that section 29(1) imposed a more stringent standard than the common law and fixed liability from January 1978. Quantum, Meridian and Pretty Polly appealed, with Guy Warwick intervening.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the employers' appeals by a majority of three to two. Lord Mance, with whom Lord Dyson and Lord Saville agreed, held that safety under section 29(1) must be judged according to the general knowledge and standards of the times, and that ordinary employers such as Quantum and Guy Warwick were not in breach of common law or statutory duty in not protecting employees against noise below 90dB(A) before 1 January 1990, since they were entitled to rely on the 1972 Code of Practice. As regards Meridian and Pretty Polly, whose greater than average knowledge gave them an earlier appreciation of the risk, the judge's decision that they were in breach from 1 January 1985 was restored. Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke dissented, concluding that employers should have appreciated and addressed the risk of hearing loss from noise between 85 and 90dB(A) much earlier.
Key Quotes
"In summary, safety must, in my view, be judged according to the general knowledge and standards of the times. The onus is on the employee to show that the workplace was unsafe in this basic sense."
— Lord Mance, para 80(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"People can legitimately hold different opinions as to what is safe. Opinions as to what is safe may vary over time as, with developing knowledge, changes occur to the standards that are reasonably expected to be followed."
— Lord Dyson, para 111(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
The leading authority on the standard of safety under section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961 and on reliance on official guidance: the Supreme Court cited it in Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6 for its endorsement of the Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold formulation of the employer's duty, and in R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015 the Court of Appeal recorded that all the Justices in Baker accepted that foreseeability of danger is relevant to reasonable practicability.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help