Greenway & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 408 (28 April 2016)

Greenway & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 408 (28 April 2016)

Platinum sensitisation, absent symptoms or harm, is not actionable physical injury in tort; the claimants' losses are pure economic loss, not recoverable in tort or contract in these circumstances; no implied contractual term or duty of care exists to protect against such loss.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 408
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Greenway; Claimant: Waynsworth Dryden; Claimant: Dean White; Claimant: Simon York; Claimant: Tony Cipullo; Defendant: Johnson Matthey PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Personal Injury, Pure Economic Loss, Implied Contractual Terms, Duty of Care, Breach of Statutory Duty
Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law Employer's Liability Personal Injury Pure Economic Loss Implied Contractual Terms Duty of Care +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Greenway

Claimant

Waynsworth Dryden

Claimant

Dean White

Claimant

Simon York

Claimant

Tony Cipullo

Claimant

Johnson Matthey PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether platinum sensitisation constitutes actionable physical injury in tort
  2. 2 Whether claimants can recover for pure economic loss absent physical injury
  3. 3 Whether an implied contractual term exists to protect employees from economic loss in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Platinum sensitisation, absent symptoms or harm, is not actionable physical injury in tort; the claimants' losses are pure economic loss, not recoverable in tort or contract in these circumstances; no implied contractual term or duty of care exists to protect against such loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed