Rice & Anor v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Anor

Rice & Anor v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Anor

The National Dock Labour Board owed a common law duty of care to the claimants to take reasonable steps to protect their health from foreseeable risks associated with asbestos exposure, arising from its statutory duty to make satisfactory provision for the training and welfare (including health) of dock workers, and the close, hybrid relationship akin to employment. The statutory framework and facts justified imposing such a duty, and doing nothing was not an option consistent with the duty owed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Winifred Rice (Widow and Executrix of the Estate of Edward Rice Deceased); Claimant/respondent: Robert Francis Thompson; 1st Defendant/appellant: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; 2nd Defendant: Stuntbrand Line Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue on Duty of Care)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Statutory Duties of Public Bodies, Employer's Liability, Asbestos Exposure
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Employment Law Duty of Care Negligence Statutory Duties of Public Bodies Employer's Liability Asbestos Exposure

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant/respondent

Robert Francis Thompson

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

1st Defendant/appellant

Stuntbrand Line Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue on Duty of Care)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Dock Labour Board (NDLB) owed a common law duty of care to dock workers allocated to employers for work involving exposure to asbestos dust.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory framework and the NDLB's functions created a relationship sufficient to impose such a duty.

Ratio Decidendi

The National Dock Labour Board owed a common law duty of care to the claimants to take reasonable steps to protect their health from foreseeable risks associated with asbestos exposure, arising from its statutory duty to make satisfactory provision for the training and welfare (including health) of dock workers, and the close, hybrid relationship akin to employment. The statutory framework and facts justified imposing such a duty, and doing nothing was not an option consistent with the duty owed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The finding that the NDLB owed a duty of care to the claimants is upheld.
  • The scope and extent of the duty remain to be determined in further proceedings.