Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd

Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd

The appeal was allowed and the order of HHJ Vosper QC dismissing the claim was restored because the trial judge was entitled to rely on the expert engineering evidence that the claimant was unlikely to have been regularly exposed to noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A), and was justified in not drawing an adverse inference from the absence of noise surveys given the passage of time and lack of evidence that surveys were not carried out.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Brian Mackenzie; Second Defendant/appellant: Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Deafness, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Employer's Duty of Care, Adverse Inference, Evidence in Personal Injury Claims
Tort Law Personal Injury Industrial Deafness Noise Induced Hearing Loss Employer's Duty of Care Adverse Inference Evidence in Personal Injury Claims

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Brian Mackenzie

Claimant/respondent

Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the employer for absence of noise surveys in industrial deafness claims
  2. 2 When the common law duty to carry out a noise survey arose
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge was entitled to rely on expert engineering evidence over claimant's recollection

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the order of HHJ Vosper QC dismissing the claim was restored because the trial judge was entitled to rely on the expert engineering evidence that the claimant was unlikely to have been regularly exposed to noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A), and was justified in not drawing an adverse inference from the absence of noise surveys given the passage of time and lack of evidence that surveys were not carried out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order of HHJ Vosper QC dismissing the claim restored