All items: Hazardous substances

• expand

  Alison Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and Morriston NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1689 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Latex case exposes strict duty to control hazardous substances

    Date:

    1 January 2003

    A Court of Appeal ruling in the case of a nurse who developed a serious allergy to powdered latex gloves establishes that employers have an absolute duty to adequately control employees' exposure to harmful substances. The ruling has implications for other cases involving exposure to hazardous substances.

• expand

  Barker v Saint Gobain Pipelines plc [2004] All ER (D) 43 (May) CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employers' liability: Asbestos damages - liability and period of self-employment

    Date:

    23 July 2004

    In Barker v Saint Gobain Pipelines plc, the Court of Appeal held that the former employer of a man who died of mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos dust during his employment was liable to pay his widow damages, notwithstanding that he was also exposed to the dust on three occasions when he was self-employed.

• expand

  Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Ltd [2002] IRLR 742 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • A duty to dismiss for the employee's best interest

    Date:

    12 November 2002

    Employers have a duty to protect employees from physical danger, even if the employee wants to continue working. By Linda Farrell, partner Bristows.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 September 2002

    Our resident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

• expand

  Fairchild (administratrix of Fairchild) v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 129 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Mesothelioma ruling reveals a "major injustice"

    Date:

    1 March 2002

    In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others, and other appeals, the Court of Appeal holds that mesothelioma sufferers who were exposed to asbestos by more than one employer should in future be denied compensation.

• expand

  Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 533 HL (7 reports relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 September 2002

    Our resident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Employer's liability: Successive employers were jointly liable for materially increasing risk of employees' disease

    Date:

    1 August 2002

    In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others, and related cases, the House of Lords holds that, where it is established that successive employers had each failed in their duty of care to protect an employee from contracting a disease during his or her employment with them, but it cannot be proved which particular employment had caused the damage complained of, each employer could be held liable in damages for the breach.

  • House of Lords victory for asbestosis victims

    Date:

    8 July 2002

    The House of Lords has overturned the Court of Appeal decision last December in the test cases of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and related cases.

  • Legal casebook: Causation and asbestos

    Date:

    1 July 2002

    An explanation of employers' liability in cases of employee illnesses contracted through exposure to asbestos.

  • When the dust settles

    Date:

    1 July 2002

    The Law Lords have re-opened the door to compensation claims for asbestos-related disease. But how far-reaching will the ruling be?

  • Asbestos compensation

    Date:

    1 July 2002

    Earlier reports that the floodgates for litigation would open following the Law Lords' ruling on victims of mesothelioma may well prove to have been exaggerated.

  • House of Lords averts major asbestos "injustice"

    Date:

    1 June 2002

    The House of Lords has reversed what the Court of Appeal called a "major injustice" to mesothelioma victims. The ruling, on 16 May, means that victims of this fatal asbestos-induced disease are, after all, eligible for compensation from their former employers.

• expand

  Jeromson v Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd and Dawson v Cherry Tree Machine Co Ltd and another [2001] ICR 1223 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Appeal leaves firms facing mesothelioma award

    Date:

    1 April 2002

    In Jeromson v Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd and Dawson v Cherry Tree Machine Co Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal upholds damages awards to the widows and families of two men killed by mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos fibres.

• expand

  Karen Bilton v Fastnet Highlands Ltd 22 July 1997 CS (1 report relating to this case)

  • Substance need not be named to fall under COSHH

    Date:

    1 May 1999

    In Karen Bilton v Fastnet Highlands Ltd, the Scottish Court of Session holds that a fish processor who developed occupational asthma can pursue a claim for compensation against her employer under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (COSHH), even though the substance is not specified by COSHH.

• expand

  Ogden v Airedale Health Authority [1996] 7 Med LR 153 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Health authority failed to protect radiographer from X-ray fumes

    Date:

    1 April 1996

    In Ogden v Airedale Health Authority, the High Court finds a health authority negligent after it failed to protect a radiographer from harmful fumes emitted by X-ray chemicals.