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 not owe a common law duty of care to dock workers in respect of health and safety during periods when they were allocated to and working for registered employers, as the employment relationship with the NDLB ceased upon allocation, and the NDLB lacked the requisite control over working conditions. The statutory duties for training and welfare did not create a sufficient relationship of proximity or control to impose a common law duty of care in these circumstances.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1257 (QB)
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 defendant; NDLB did not owe the claimed duty of care.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Employer's Liability, Asbestos Exposure, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Duties
Tort Law Employment Law Occupational Health and Safety Duty of Care Employer's Liability Asbestos Exposure Vicarious Liability Statutory Duties

Case Brief

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 12 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 Whether the National Dock Labour Board (NDLB) owed a duty of care to dock workers allocated to registered employers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1947, specifically regarding health and safety in relation to asbestos exposure.

Ratio Decidendi

The NDLB did not owe a common law duty of care to dock workers in respect of health and safety during periods when they were allocated to and working for registered employers, as the employment relationship with the NDLB ceased upon allocation, and the NDLB lacked the requisite control over working conditions. The statutory duties for training and welfare did not create a sufficient relationship of proximity or control to impose a common law duty of care in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the defendant; NDLB did not owe the claimed duty of care.