header-logo header-logo

Employers win out on noise

28 April 2011
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A knitting company was not responsible for an employee’s noise-induced loss of hearing where noise levels did not exceed the threshold for protection, the Supreme Court has held.

Stephanie Baker worked for 18 years until 1989. She left before 1 January 1990, the date when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 came into force.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17 centred on whether liability exists at common law or under s 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, towards an employee who can establish noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise levels between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd.
 

Before 1990, employers applied the 1971 Code of Practice on Noise which required them to protect employees from noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

Baker, who suffered tinnitus and hearing loss, claimed her former employer, Quantum Clothing Group, was liable for not providing hearing protection. At the time of her employment, the noise levels in Quantum’s factory did not exceed 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

The Supreme Court ruled that Quantum did not breach its common law or statutory duty of care towards its employee. It said Quantum had no duty to act at levels of 90 dBA (Lepd) before the introduction of the 1989 regulations.
Baker v Quantum, or “the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Textile deafness litigation” as the case is widely known, originally concerned 10 test claims of hearing loss.
 

Jim Byard, Weightmans’ head of disease, who acted for Quantum on instruction by Zurich Insurance, said: “This is a hugely important decision. Had the Supreme Court found in favour of Mrs Baker, the floodgates for tens of thousands of noise induced hearing loss claims would have opened.

“Employers must be able to rely on official guidance documents such as the Code of Practice on Noise without fear that the courts will subsequently reinterpret the law in the form of retrospective legislation.”

Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll