Cotton v Helphire Ltd [2019] EWHC 508 (QB) (05 March 2019)

Cotton v Helphire Ltd [2019] EWHC 508 (QB) (05 March 2019)

The Recorder was entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr Hind, finding that the appellant's asthma was constitutional and not caused by workplace exposure. There was no substantive failure to make findings, and Regulation 11 was not engaged as there was no evidence of work-related symptoms that should have triggered health surveillance. Causation was not established.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 508
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Shaun Cotton; Respondent/defendant: Helphire Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupational Asthma, Breach of Statutory Duty, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Causation, Health Surveillance
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Occupational Asthma Breach of Statutory Duty Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 Causation Health Surveillance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Cotton

Appellant/claimant

Helphire Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached Regulation 11 of COSHH by failing to provide health surveillance for the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's asthma was caused or aggravated by workplace exposure to hazardous substances
  3. 3 Whether causation between workplace exposure and asthma was established

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr Hind, finding that the appellant's asthma was constitutional and not caused by workplace exposure. There was no substantive failure to make findings, and Regulation 11 was not engaged as there was no evidence of work-related symptoms that should have triggered health surveillance. Causation was not established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No liability found against respondent
  • No damages awarded