23 June 2011 / Robert O'Leary

Issue: 7471 / Categories: Features , Personal injury

printer

mail-detail

Loud & clear?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robert O’Leary outlines the impact of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

In the first industrial deafness case to reach the Supreme Court—Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and others [2011] UKSC 17, [2011] All ER (D) 137 (Apr)—the court found in favour of the appellant employers by a majority of 3:2. In the process, the long-standing Court of Appeal authority on the interpretation of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961), s 29, Larner v British Steel [1993] 4 All ER 102, [1993] ICR 551 was overruled. The decision could potentially have a marked impact on personal injury claims.

Section 29

Section 29 of FaA 1961, provides that “every place at which any person has at any time to work…shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for any person working there”.
The appellants argued that s 29 applied only to the structure and fabric of factory premises and not to processes carried on there. Noise, it was argued, required someone to be exposed for many years to suffer material injury.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Loud & clear?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robert O’Leary outlines the impact of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

In the first industrial deafness case to reach the Supreme Court—Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and others [2011] UKSC 17, [2011] All ER (D) 137 (Apr)—the court found in favour of the appellant employers by a majority of 3:2. In the process, the long-standing Court of Appeal authority on the interpretation of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961), s 29, Larner v British Steel [1993] 4 All ER 102, [1993] ICR 551 was overruled. The decision could potentially have a marked impact on personal injury claims.

Section 29

Section 29 of FaA 1961, provides that “every place at which any person has at any time to work…shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for any person working there”.
The appellants argued that s 29 applied only to the structure and fabric of factory premises and not to processes carried on there. Noise, it was argued, required someone to be exposed for many years to suffer material injury.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

back-to-top-scroll