Worker owed duty of care by parent company

A parent company was liable when a subsidiary failed in its duty of care to an employee, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

About 50 years ago, Mr Chandler worked loading bricks at a Cape Building Products site, where asbestos boards were also manufactured. Inevitably, he was exposed to asbestos dust.

However, by the time that Chandler contracted asbestosis, Cape BP had ceased to exist. Chandler therefore brought a claim against Cape — the parent company which was still operating. Cape tried to resist his claim on the basis that it wasn’t liable for its subsidiary’s failure.

The Court of Appeal considered that Cape had not been responsible for the implementation of Cape BP’s health and safety measures. However, Cape had involved itself in Cape BP’s health and safety policy.

The court also noted that Cape maintained a degree of control over the Cape BP and knew that asbestos dust was harmful.

Given that Cape knew that asbestos dust was hazardous to health, the appeal court found that it should have advised Cape BP on what steps to take to protect employees. The Court of Appeal decided that Cape was responsible for the fact that there wasn’t a safe system of working — that is, it owed Chandler a duty of care, a responsibility which it had breached.

Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525