Rice v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry & Anor [2006] EWHC 1257 (QB) (26 May 2006)

Rice v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry & Anor [2006] EWHC 1257 (QB) (26 May 2006)

The NDLB did owe a duty of care to the claimants to take reasonable steps to protect their health and safety in respect of work carried out as registered dock workers under the Scheme, given the statutory obligations for welfare and training, the foreseeability of harm from asbestos, and the inability of dock...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1257
Parties
Claimant: Winifred Rice (Widow and Executrix of the Estate of Edward Rice, Deceased); Claimant: Robert Francis Thompson; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Second Defendant: Stuntbrand Line Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/negligence (preliminary Issue) / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined in favour of the claimants; NDLB owed a duty of care.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Employer's Liability, Asbestos Exposure, Dock Workers, Statutory Duties, Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Duty of Care Employer's Liability Asbestos Exposure Dock Workers Statutory Duties +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winifred Rice (Widow and Executrix of the Estate of Edward Rice, Deceased)

Claimant

Robert Francis Thompson

Claimant

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

First Defendant

Stuntbrand Line Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/negligence (preliminary Issue) / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the National Dock Labour Board owe a duty of care to Edward Rice and/or Robert Thompson to take reasonable steps to protect their health and safety in respect of work carried out as registered dock workers under the National Dock Labour Board Scheme 1947 or as amended?

Ratio Decidendi

The NDLB did owe a duty of care to the claimants to take reasonable steps to protect their health and safety in respect of work carried out as registered dock workers under the Scheme, given the statutory obligations for welfare and training, the foreseeability of harm from asbestos, and the inability of dock workers to protect themselves due to the structure of the Scheme. The duty existed notwithstanding the lack of direct control after allocation, as the NDLB retained obligations to inquire into welfare and training where employers failed to provide adequate protection.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the claimants; NDLB owed a duty of care.

Orders

  • Declaration that the National Dock Labour Board owed a duty of care to the claimants to take reasonable steps to protect their health and safety in respect of work carried out as registered dock workers under the Scheme.