Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 (29 November 2019)

Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 (29 November 2019)

The trial judge was entitled to accept the expert engineering evidence that the claimant was unlikely to have been regularly exposed to noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A) at the relevant times, and to find that the absence of noise surveys was adequately explained by the passage of time. There was no sufficient basis...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 2110
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Brian Mackenzie; Second Defendant/appellant: Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Which Had Itself Heard an Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Deafness, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Employer's Duty of Care, Adverse Inferences, Burden of Proof, Historical Evidence, Common Law Duty to Survey, Expert Evidence
Tort Personal Injury Employment Industrial Deafness Noise Induced Hearing Loss Employer's Duty of Care Adverse Inferences Burden of Proof +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Brian Mackenzie

Claimant/respondent

Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Which Had Itself Heard an Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the expert engineering evidence that the claimant was unlikely to have been regularly exposed to noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A) at the relevant times, and to find that the absence of noise surveys was adequately explained by the passage of time. There was no sufficient basis to draw an adverse inference against the employer or to overturn the trial judge's factual findings. The claim was properly dismissed on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Garnham J set aside
  • Order of HHJ Vosper QC dismissing the claim restored