Exposure to Toxic Substances at Work – Guideline Court of Appeal Ruling

Exposure to toxic substances at work is often cited as a possible cause of diseases developed later in life. However, as an important Court of Appeal ruling made plain, establishing the plausibility of such causal links may not, by itself, be enough to succeed in an occupational injury…

Nov 29, 2023

Pexels pixabay 209230 1024x685

Exposure to toxic substances at work is often cited as a possible cause of diseases developed later in life. However, as an important Court of Appeal ruling made plain, establishing the plausibility of such causal links may not, by itself, be enough to succeed in an occupational injury claim.

The case concerned a man who developed Parkinson’s disease after working for an industrial employer for almost 40 years. After he launched a personal injury claim, a judge found that he had been exposed on the shop floor to significant levels of an organic solvent, trichloroethylene (TCE), which was used to clean and degrease engineering components.

Before the judge, it was not the man’s case that such exposure merely increased the risk of him developing Parkinson’s disease. Rather, he asserted that TCE did, in fact, cause or materially contribute to his condition. The judge upheld his claim, finding his former employer liable to compensate him for all the consequences of the disease.

Ruling on the employer’s challenge to that outcome, the Court noted that there is no doubt that TCE is neurotoxic. It is also now recognised as a carcinogen. The man was not required to show that a causal link between TCE and Parkinson’s disease had been scientifically proved. It was sufficient for him to establish that such a link was more likely than not.

Upholding the appeal, however, the Court observed that the causation of Parkinson’s disease is poorly understood. A wide range of genetic and environmental factors had been postulated, exposure to TCE amongst them. TCE is one of many compounds that have been suggested to be capable of causing the disease. However, a number of controlled, high-quality studies had, to date, not produced consistent results or substantiated such a cause-effect relationship.

The evidence of such a causal link, as summarised by the judge, was weak. It did no more than establish that TCE is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease and that there is a plausible mechanism, based on studies involving rodents, for a finding that TCE may cause or materially contribute to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Overall, the evidence did not justify a conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, such wrongful exposure to TCE as the man experienced made a material contribution to the onset of the disease.

Stable Lass Compromised Employment Dispute ‘Under Duress’

Under the auspices of Acas, employment disputes can be formally compromised by way of so-called ‘COT3’ agreements, thus obviating the need for litigation. However, as a guideline ruling showed, such agreements are unlikely to be worth the paper they are written on if they are entered into under duress. The case concerned a stable lass who lived in tied accommodation. When faced with disciplinary proceedings, she entered into a COT3 agreement with her employer. She subsequently lodged Employment…

‘Cheeky Monkey’ Comment a Racial Slur in a Workplace Context, ET Rules

Comments like ‘cheeky monkey’ may be viewed as entirely innocent in one context but can have racial undertones in another. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in upholding a racial harassment claim brought by a Somali man who was referred to as such by a co-worker. After the man, who worked for a cleaning contractor, lodged proceedings following his dismissal, the ET found on the balance of probabilities that the co-worker had, on separate occasions, called him a cheeky monkey and told…

High Court Apportions Liability for Worker’s Construction Site Fall

Construction workers often do not have formal employment contracts and, in a world where contractors and subcontractors proliferate, it can be hard to tell where legal responsibility lies in the event of an accident. That was certainly so in a High Court case concerning a labourer who suffered catastrophic injuries in a workplace fall. The worker was engaged in building a mezzanine office at factory premises when he fell onto concrete, fracturing his skull. He suffered a severe brain injury,…