Heynike v 00222648 Ltd (Formerly Birlec Limited) & Ors (Fatal Mesothelioma)

Heynike v 00222648 Ltd (Formerly Birlec Limited) & Ors (Fatal Mesothelioma)

The deceased was not an employee of Birlec; no implied contract existed as the agency arrangements accurately reflected the relationship and were not a sham. The Asbestos Regulations 1969 did not wholly substitute section 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961; the duty to protect against substantial quantities of dust remained. The work at the Royal Ordnance Factory constituted a 'process' under the Act. The place of work was unsafe under section 29(1) due to ongoing hazardous dust exposure. Factory occupiers had a common law duty of care due to knowledge and power to intervene, and breached that duty.

Parties
Claimant: Francois Maartens Heynike (executor of the Estate of David Hill, deceased); First Defendant: 00222648 Limited (formerly Birlec Limited); Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Third Defendant: Special Metals Wiggin Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Liability found against the second and third defendants for breach of statutory duty and common law duty of care. No implied contract of employment between deceased and Birlec.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Agency Worker Status, Factories Act 1961, Asbestos Regulations 1969, Common Law Duty of Care, Statutory Duty, Breach of Duty, Mesothelioma, Apportionment of Liability
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Liability Agency Worker Status Factories Act 1961 Asbestos Regulations 1969 +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois Maartens Heynike (executor of the Estate of David Hill, deceased)

Claimant

00222648 Limited (formerly Birlec Limited)

First Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Second Defendant

Special Metals Wiggin Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased was an employee of Birlec or an agency worker
  2. 2 Whether the Asbestos Regulations 1969 substituted section 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961
  3. 3 Whether the work at the Royal Ordnance Factory constituted a 'process' under section 63

Ratio Decidendi

The deceased was not an employee of Birlec; no implied contract existed as the agency arrangements accurately reflected the relationship and were not a sham. The Asbestos Regulations 1969 did not wholly substitute section 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961; the duty to protect against substantial quantities of dust remained. The work at the Royal Ordnance Factory constituted a 'process' under the Act. The place of work was unsafe under section 29(1) due to ongoing hazardous dust exposure. Factory occupiers had a common law duty of care due to knowledge and power to intervene, and breached that duty.

Court Disposition

Liability found against the second and third defendants for breach of statutory duty and common law duty of care. No implied contract of employment between deceased and Birlec.

Orders

  • Second and third defendants found liable for breach of statutory duty and common law duty of care.
  • Quantum of damages agreed at £135,000, subject to apportionment.