In 2007 Mr Chandler discovered he had contracted asbestosis from exposure to asbestos dust. You can browse, search or filter our publications, seminars and webinars, multimedia and collections of curated content from across our global network. [Help], IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (QUEENS BENCH DIVISION)WYN WILLIAMS J This appeal is brought by Cape plc ("Cape"), the parent company of Mr Chandler's former employer. By 1959 reference is made in the minutes of Cape Products Limited to a "Group Central Laboratory" helping to resolve problems due to the rejection of certain goods produced at Uxbridge. However, the court did consider obiter the second limb of Caparo and, in particular, the application of the factors identified in Chandler v Cape 1 WLR 3111 in order to establish whether there was a relationship of sufficient proximity between UPLC (as a UK domiciled parent company) and the claimants, namely: A recent Court of Appeal in Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 decision has found that a parent company owed a duty of care to its subsidiary employees. Hutcheson plc v Watson [1995] 1 BCLC 218 Adams v Adams Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41 Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 Nonetheless, despite the sale, it maintained a certain level of control over the asbestos business carried on at Uxbridge. Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. Chafiq Ayadi, v European Commission, [2013] EUECJ C-183/12 (06 June 2013) Chaggar v Chaggar & Anor [2018] EWHC 1203 (QB) (18 May 2018) Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 (13 November 2009) Chagos Islanders v Attorney General Her Majesty's British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB) (09 October 2003) Case ID. In the landmark decision of Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision that a parent company owed a direct duty of … Mr Stuart-Smith contends for a threshold test, namely that, in determining whether there has been an assumption of responsibility, the court is restricted to matters which might be described as not being normal incidents of the relationship between a parent and subsidiary company. As the judge held, working on past performance and viewing the matter realistically, Cape could, and did on other matters, give Cape Products instructions as to how it was to operate with which, so far as we know, it duly complied. 7 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415. There is evidence that it was indeed shared. The effect of the change was that the asbestos operations at Uxbridge became the responsibility of Cape Products, and on Mr Stuart-Smith's submission, no one else. Mr Weir also relies on the evidence of Mr Sim, another employee of Cape, who gave evidence on behalf of Cape about working conditions at Uxbridge in an action brought by the widow of an employee. This was because: (i) the parent company and subsidiary had relatively similar businesses; (ii) the parent company knew (or ought to have known) that the subsidiary’s system of work was unsafe; and (iii) the parent company knew (or ought to have foreseen) that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on its using that superior knowledge the employee’s protection. He submits that the fact that Cape is the parent company of Mr Chandler's employer does not of itself give rise to duties to protect the respondent from injury at work. A manager was appointed "to manage this plant as a branch of Cape" (see. (Ibid. To help you navigate and control risk in a challenging legal landscape, we have collated a range of key advice and guidance. The judge gleaned information from the transcripts. Moreover, the country of incorporation of a subsidiary is unlikely to make a difference if the parent entity is a UK plc. Create an account and set your email alert preferences to receive the content relevant to you and your business, at your chosen frequency. Accordingly, the judge was able to draw inferences from the fact that Dr Gaze was chief chemist scientist. Mr Stuart-Smith submits that the fact that Cape is the parent company involves certain levels of control. Mr Robert Weir QC, Mr Simon Levene & Mr Sudhanshu Swaroop (instructed by Leigh Day & Co.) for the Respondent By this time, the subsidiary entity had been dissolved. However, its parent company, Cape, formerly the well-known asbestos producer Cape Asbestos plc, is still in existence. He became an international authority in this field. There were also common directors but every director has an independent responsibility for running the company and so the mere fact that there were common directors does not, on Mr Stuart-Smith's submission, imply a watering down of the subsidiary's obligations to its employees. 8 Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111. This, on Cape's admission, was a case of blatant exposure. Mr Hodgson, a chemist employed by Cape at its Barking factory from 1953 to 1971 signed a witness statement in 2002 in proceedings brought by the widow of a former employee against a company which was a successor to Cape Products (as well as being a member of the Cape group). They were interested in these things and their research was a continuation of the same theme. Facts. Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) Judgment date. Cape plc appealed, but its appeal was dismissed. Mr Weir submits that the letters to and from Dr Smither have to be seen in the context of all the other evidence. He was also (if this label makes any difference) the group medical adviser of Cape. Health and safety issues were dealt with at company and parent company level. As Lord Goff pointed out in, Lord Goff speaks of the imposition or assumption of responsibility. Neutral citation number [2019] UKSC 20. iii) Reversal of the onus of proof: Mr Stuart-Smith complained that the judge had reversed the onus of proof in paragraph 44 of his judgment (the material passage is set out in paragraph 50 above). The scope of the duty can be defined in either way. Mr Stuart-Smith accepts that there can be an assumption of responsibility by an independent contractor in favour of the employees of his employer. The Court of Appeal decision in Chandler v Cape has extended the situations in which a parent company can be held liable for group operations, by establishing a parent company duty of care to its subsidiary's employees. The evidence at trial was sparse and consisted mainly of documentary evidence. However, this included an exception for pneumoconiosis. The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the High Court which found that a parent company owed a direct duty of care to an employee of one of its subsidiaries. 10 Martin Petrin, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape Plc’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 603. 10 Martin Petrin, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape Plc’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 603. That company is no longer in existence. Dr Gaze became a director of Cape in September 1961. Cape concedes that the system of work at Cape Products was defective. During the course of his employment, Mr Chandler was exposed to asbestos fibres and in 2007, Mr Chandler was diagnosed with asbestosis. To help you stay up-to-date with key regulatory developments in a time of accelerating change, we have collated a range of crucial horizon scanning content. In my judgment, the position is as follows: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions.