Naylor v Volex Group Plc

Naylor v Volex Group Plc

The employer breached Regulations 6 and 7 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 by failing to reassess risk when new information about colophony hazards became available and by failing to prevent or adequately control exposure, despite practicable means being available. Foreseeability or lack of knowledge is not a defence under these regulations. The claimant's evidence on exposure and causation was accepted by the trial judge, and there was no basis to overturn these findings.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Yvonne Mary Naylor; Defendants/appellants: Volex Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Statutory Duty, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health, Industrial Asthma, Risk Assessment, Breach of Statutory Duty
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Statutory Duty Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Industrial Asthma Risk Assessment Breach of Statutory Duty

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Mary Naylor

Claimant/respondent

Volex Group PLC

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached statutory duties under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, Regulations 6 and 7
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's exposure to colophony fumes caused industrial asthma
  3. 3 Whether the employer's risk assessment and control measures were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The employer breached Regulations 6 and 7 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 by failing to reassess risk when new information about colophony hazards became available and by failing to prevent or adequately control exposure, despite practicable means being available. Foreseeability or lack of knowledge is not a defence under these regulations. The claimant's evidence on exposure and causation was accepted by the trial judge, and there was no basis to overturn these findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed