The claimants had been exposed to platinum salts while employed by the defendant company in breach of the employer’s duties in negligence and Health and Safety. Though they had suffered no symptoms, they claimed in damages. The employer said that no actionable claim yet lay.
Held: The claimants’ appeals were rejected. Platinum sensitisation was not in itself an actionable harm. It was a physiological change, but not a hidden impairment which the potential to give rise to detrimental physical effects in the course of day to day life.
Lord Dyson MR, Davis, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 408, [2016] 1 WLR 4487, [2017] ICR 276, [2016] WLR(D) 224, [2017] ICR 43, [2016] IRLR 526
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
At QBD – Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc QBD 26-Nov-2014
The five claimants had been employed by the defendant. Whilst at work, and in breach of Health an Safety regulations, they had been exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts, and now claimed a sensitisation to such salts. The defendant argued . .
Cited by:
At CA – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563069