57. They will need to take heed of these comments by the Judge. 16. In that passage, submits Mr Stuart-Smith, the judge wrongly reversed the burden of proof. 29. 41. Legal, compliance, corporate secretarial and HR services that connect with you in many ways. 75. Indeed, the case was primarily a civil personal injury case, and most cases civil personal injury cases will not have any direct impact on criminal health and safety law as the various legal tests differ. Finally, I must deal with Mr Stuart-Smith's submission that the judge had gone beyond Cape's concession in the pleadings (above, paragraph 34). Nonetheless, despite the sale, it maintained a certain level of control over the asbestos business carried on at Uxbridge. There was however a group policy of surveillance. Dr Gaze became a director of Cape in September 1961. It was a centre of activities on asbestos production issues. In order to understand that relationship it is necessary to set out briefly the history of both companies and how they became linked. 66. On Mr Weir's submission, the imposition of a duty of care does not "collapse the principle of limited liability". Food Distributors Ltd. V Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 1976. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Mr Weir submits that, once Cape has been found to have overall responsibility, it must follow that they caused or permitted the breach of duty to Mr Chandler. The recent decision in Chandler v Cape plc (2) was, in the words of Lady Justice Arden of the Court of Appeal, "one of the first cases in which an employee has established at trial liability to him on the part of his employer's parent company". 2 pages) Accordingly, there was no point in seeking to have the dissolution of Cape Products set aside so as to be able to enforce rights against its employer's liability policy. Reference is made in the evidence to steps taken to monitor dust after the enactment of the Asbestos Regulations in 1969, but no information is provided about the steps taken before that date. All rights reserved. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Who controls the content and form of risk assessments and ultimately reviews these and determines when and how health and safety audits are done – the parent or subsidiary? Mr Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC & Mr Charles Feeny (instructed by Greenwoods Solicitors) for the Appellant, Mr Robert Weir QC, Mr Simon Levene & Mr Sudhanshu Swaroop (instructed by Leigh Day & Co.) for the Respondent. According to Dr Browne, Dr Gaze's responsibility extended to health and safety issues raised by research and development. This evidence was consistent with the case that the judge had found throughout the relevant period of employment. Citation. On 28 December 1893 The Cape Asbestos Company Ltd was incorporated in London. The relationship could have remained one of landlord and tenant on arm's length terms but that did not happen. 11. Chandler v Cape PLC relationship between the Defendant and Cape Productsat the time relevant to these proceedings. The facts of Chandler were as follows. 34. CHANDLER V. CAPE: AN ALTERNATIVE TO PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL BEYOND KIOBEL V. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL* Dalia Palombo.. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law ABSTRACT For over a century, since the case of Salomon v. Salomon, litigators have attempted without success to pierce the corporate veil of corporations in or- der to sue … Dr Smither must have known about the risks during some part or all of the relevant period. iv) Reliance on subsequent events: Mr Stuart-Smith criticises the judge for taking into account evidence as to events subsequent to the relevant period. In this case, the claimant, Mr Chandler, was employed by a subsidiary of Cape plc for just over 18 months from 1959 to 1962. 12. Its principal factory was in Barking, near London. Slowly but surely, Cape Products became a part of an integrated group of companies headed by Cape: ii) At all material times there was one or more directors of Cape on the board of Cape Products. There is no imposition or assumption of responsibility by reason only that a company is the parent company of another company. The Judge stated: “Given Cape’s state of knowledge about the Cowley Works, and its superior knowledge about the nature and management of asbestos risks, I have no doubt that in this case it is appropriate to find that Cape assumed a duty of care either to advise Cape Products on what steps it had to take in the light of knowledge then available to provide those employees with a safe system of work or to ensure that those steps were taken.”. Whether or not smoking cannabis prior to commencing work constitutes a dismissible offence, Eversheds Sutherland Financial Services: A new transatlantic gold standard? This falls within the second and third parts of the three-part Caparo test for determining whether there is a duty of care, namely proximity and the further requirement that it be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. (Chandler v Cape plc, supra at 1, at [2]). Dr Smither's letter and the inspector's reply both show that there was some understanding even in 1961 of a connection or potential connection between dust exposure and the development of asbestosis. There are no documents evidencing communications because there were no such communications and there should have been. Mr Stuart-Smith did not produce any case establishing this proposition and I would reject it. Explore the big challenges, opportunities, debates and frameworks for business and human rights. Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] Facts. Cape concedes that the system of work at Cape Products was defective. The configuration of the asbestos factory dated back to the time when Cape introduced its Pluto board manufacturing business into the Cowley Works. However, some recent cases have opened up the possibility of the principles established in civil claims being used in criminal health and safety cases. With respect to the evidence to the Advisory Committee on Asbestos submitted by Cape in l976 and 1977, Mr Stuart-Smith submits that this should largely be discounted as it was written long after the relevant period and referred loosely to the past. (Judgment, paragraph 73). Food Distributors Ltd. V Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, [1976]) Sufficient evidence had been produced to make it clear to him that the existence of a group policy on health and safety should be inferred from the known facts unless Cape could show that it did not exist. Cape Products remained the owner of its own assets and handled its own sales and dealings with third parties. Chandler v Cape plc EWCA Civ 525, a decision of the English Court of Appeal addresses the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, in circumstances where the victim suffered industrial injury during employment by a subsidiary company. 51. Moreover, as Mr Weir submits, the judge's findings regarding Dr Smither are not disputed. 9. According to the judge, he was succeeded in 1957 by Dr W. H. Smither, but that date is challenged on this appeal. PLC. The judge gleaned information from the transcripts. The question is simply whether what the parent company did amounted to taking on a direct duty to the subsidiary's employees. The case concerned health and safety matters, but the decision has much wider implications for parent company liability … The more a parent company or organisation directs what a subsidiary should do (in health and safety terms), the more it potentially attracts additional Section 3 HSWA responsibilities. 76. Legal events and training: choose a location, Privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, Export controls, sanctions and anti-money laundering, All corporate crime / white collar crime and investigations, Employment litigation and dispute resolution, Personnel records and employee data privacy, Public-private partnerships infrastructure, All finance, financial services regulation and investment products, Commodities & securities litigation and regulatory enforcement, Insurance M&A, reinsurance and restructurings, Insurance and retirement products, insurance distribution, Propel: Litigation technology and project management, Shipping and international trade disputes, All pensions, benefits and executive compensation, Institutional investment and fund formation, Property due diligence and transaction support, Financial services and financial products taxation, Environmental social governance: Corporates, Schools (including independent schools UK), Eversheds Sutherland (International) Press Hub, US Target China's National Offshore Oil Corporation with Export Sanctions, Lighting up before work - they can’t fire you – or can they? Chandler alleged that Cape PLC and Cape Products were joint tortfeasors, that they owed him a duty of care and that they were jointly and severally liable to pay him damages. FACTS Until 1979 the first defendant, Cape, an English company, presided over a group of subsidiary companies engaged in the mining in South Africa, and marketing, of asbestos. Although none of these letters bear any statement as to the capacity in which Dr Smither was acting, they demonstrate that he visited Cape Products' factory to discuss a particular case of asbestosis (it is not clear whether the employee was employed in the asbestos production or brick making side of Cape Products' business). In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. As Lord Goff pointed out in Smith v Littlewoods Ltd [1987] AC 241 at 270, there is in general no duty to prevent third parties causing damage to another. 74. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Chandler (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord Kerr Lord Sumption Lord Reed Lord Carnwath Lord Lloyd-Jones JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 March 2018 Heard on 16 January 2018. The question is simply whether what the parent company did amounted to taking on a direct duty to the subsidiary’s employees.”. Could liability be found; Decision. [FREE] Lil Baby Type Beat "Grind Hard" (Prod By Lbeats) Smooth Trap Type Beat Instrumental - Duration: 6:51. Mr Chandler's employment with Cape Products ran from 24 April to 9 October 1959 and from 24 January 1961 to 9 February 1962 (together "the relevant period"). The board resolution suggests that, where the grant of a licence affected the interests of the group, Cape Products was making corporate decisions with regard to those interests, as well as those of itself as a separate legal entity. Chandler v Cape: The new parent company 'duty of care' for health & safety injuries 3 July 2012 The Court of Appeal decision in Chandler v Cape has extended the situations in which a parent company can be held liable for group operations, by establishing a parent company duty of care to its subsidiary's employees. After the Second World War, Cape looked for other factory premises because there was insufficient room at its Barking factory for increased production of a major asbestos product, Pluto board. They had contemporaneous minutes of board meetings and a long line of previous litigation involving Cape Plc with witness statements from those cases. andrewbennett@eversheds.com. The focus of Mr Stuart-Smith's submissions on the facts is on what he calls four areas of error by the judge: (1) the judge's failure to identify features of the relationship between parent and subsidiary which were unusual or outwith the characteristics of that relationship, which are on his submissions preconditions to a finding of an assumption of responsibility; (2) the judge's failure, as he submits it to be, to determine the extent of the duty owed by Cape to Mr Chandler and whether breach of that duty could have caused the excessive asbestos exposure to which he was subjected; (3) erroneous findings of fact by the judge and (4) the reversal of the onus of proof by the judge. On this basis, I do not need to consider Mr Weir's fallback submission that, in assuming a specific health and safety role in relation to Cape Products, Cape would not be acting outside the normal parent and subsidiary relationship. Nonetheless, events occurring after the relevant period in my judgment are relevant to confirm or explain the cogency of events before or during the relevant period. 49. On 25 April, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic ruling concerning the liability of parent companies to an employee of one of its subsidiaries. In the particular facts of this case, the fact that the parent company (Cape) knew more about the specific health and safety risk to the subsidiaries’ employees than the subsidiary (Cape Products) did was a key factor in determining that they were responsible. Konexo is now present in the UK, US, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. Mr Weir rejects the suggestion that the judge reversed the burden of proof. It is also a fine balance between monitoring or managing a contractor by reference to the contractor’s own methodology, and stepping too far towards directing the operations of the contractor at which point the risk of incurring liability increases. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 58. There was, held the judge, "a systemic failure of which [Cape] was well aware." The medical adviser reported to the board. 3. The word "assumption" is therefore something of a misnomer. 10 Martin Petrin, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape Plc’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 603. 8 Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111. Cape moreover had superior knowledge about the asbestos business. In the present case, Cape exercised financial control over expenditure in just the same sort of way that one would normally expect to see a subsidiary looking to a parent for approval. 27. Accordingly the judge then brought together what he saw as the most important findings. Mr Stuart-Smith submits that the judge should not have relied on events subsequent to the relevant period. On Mr Weir's submission, the medical adviser plainly did not meet the responsibility of Cape. The case concerned health and safety matters, but the decision has much wider implications for parent company … For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal. During the course of his employment he was exposed to asbestos fibres. Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 is a decision of the Court of Appeal which addresses the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, in circumstances where the victim suffered industrial injury during employment by a subsidiary company. The work that the subsidiary employees are doing is obviously connected to the interests of the parent company or organisation and they will want to retain some measure of financial control over the subsidiary, so there will always be a risk (usually a very small risk) that section 3 of the 1974 Act (as stated above) could be used against a parent company or organisation. Dr Smither was also a member of an industry-led expert body, the Asbestos Research Council, set up in the 1950s to lead research into the health and safety issues arising from asbestos. Chandler v Cape plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB) is a UK company law and English tort law case concerning the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, when the victim is harmed by the operations of a subsidiary company. Products were for instance to be manufactured in accordance with its product specification. Between 1959 and 1962, Mr Chandler was an employee of a subsidiary of Cape plc and was involved in the manufacture of asbestos. The court will look at the relationship between the companies more widely. Cape paid a rent and a share of the rates, and there is nothing to suggest that the rent was not fixed at the market rate. 40. The issue in the present case is whether Cape, as parent company, accepted responsibility for the health and safety of employees. His witness statement, in conjunction with the other evidence, naturally led the judge to find that Dr Gaze was group chief scientist and that he worked in the group laboratory. Chandler v Cape: The new parent company 'duty of care' for health & safety injuries 3 July 2012. Likewise, it has been held on two occasions that it is arguable that a parent company may owe a duty of care to employees of subsidiaries: see Connelly v Rio Tino Zinc Corporation and Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd v others, January 1996, per Maurice Kay J, unreported. There was a works doctor and nurse there. (Ibid. The grounds of appeal are (1) that the judge applied the wrong test for the imposition of liability on a parent company; (2) that the judge failed to identify the scope of the duty of care which he found; (3) that the judge wrongly made specific findings of fact and on occasions wrongly reversed the onus of proof and (4) that the judge misunderstood a concession made in the pleadings. Although liability of parent companies … 66. In any event, any responsible parent food and drink business operators will be aware of the reputational issues that will hurt them even if only the subsidiary is prosecuted, and will want to maintain interest and co-operation in health and safety issues with the subsidiary. 50. This, on Cape's admission, was a case of blatant exposure. There is nothing wrong in that but it suggests that the company policy of Cape on subsidiaries was that there were certain matters in respect of which they were subject to parent company direction. The judge relied on Cape's board minutes of a meeting on 27 November 1964 which confirm that by that date at least Dr Smither, described as group medical adviser, was seeking to do research on the lung function of employees including those at Cape Products. In the present case, Cape was clearly in the practice of issuing instructions about the products of the company, for instance, about product mixes. He found that there had been an assumption of responsibility for the reasons set out in paragraphs 72 to 77 of this judgment: 32. The Court’s main reasoning on the three stage test was: The first instance decision of the Court of Appeal did not consider the specific question whether the parent company held specific criminal responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Is it specific to the subsidiary or group wide? The effect of the change was that the asbestos operations at Uxbridge became the responsibility of Cape Products, and on Mr Stuart-Smith's submission, no one else. the Court in R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059; [2006] Crim LR 929. There was only one witness who gave oral evidence, namely Dr Kevin Browne. Moreover, while I have reached my conclusion in my own words and following my own route, it turns out that, in all essential respects, my reasoning follows the analysis of the judge in paragraphs 61 and 72 to 75 of his judgment. CHANDLER V. CAPE: AN ALTERNATIVE TO PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL BEYOND KIOBEL V. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL* Dalia Palombo.. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law ABSTRACT For over a century, since the case of Salomon v. Salomon, litigators have attempted without success to pierce the corporate veil of corporations in or- der to sue the holding companies for the torts … In Chandler v Cape plc, the Court of Appeal imposed for the first time liability on a company for a breach of its duty of care to an employee of its subsidiary. they carry out the same sort of business production); the parent has, or ought to have, superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry; the subsidiary’s system of work is unsafe as the parent company knew, or ought to have known; and, the parent knew or ought to have foreseen that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on its using that superior knowledge for the employees’ protection.”. David Chandler had been employed by a wholly … The Court was asked to determine whether a duty of care was owed by Cape plc to Mr Chandler. In those circumstances, this court is substantially in the same position as the judge to the review the evidence. This was not a case where the subsidiary was just under the control of the parent. If the civil principles of Chandler v Case plc from the first instance judgment had been transposed into health and safety law, the likely impact could be to extend the duty of care of parent companies or organisations (established from section 3 of the HSWA 1974) beyond merely contractors or sub-contractors so that they could be responsible for employees of subsidiary companies or organisations provided it could be shown they were affected by the parent’s “undertaking”, ie. Cape and then further developed with Chandler v. Cape, offers an alternative to either piercing the corporate veil or establishing a cause of action based on a … It was thoroughly understandable that Cape should be involved in that decision. Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] Chandler v Webster [1904] Chaplin v Hicks [2011] Chappel v Nestle [1960] Chaudhary v Yavuz [2011] Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989] Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997] Cheney v Conn [1968] Chester v Afshar [2004] It was also common ground at the trial that there was nothing to justify the piercing of the corporate veil in this case (see Judgment, paragraph 66). Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. As to the other two elements, Mr Weir draws no distinction between them. The evidence at trial was sparse and consisted mainly of documentary evidence. This court does not therefore in the main have to defer to the judge by reason of his having had the advantage, not available to this court, of hearing witnesses. It would have been very surprising if Cape did not make technical know-how available to Cape Products in view of its long experience in the asbestos industry. 69. Some people are claiming this is an attack on the separate legal personality principles, fundamental to company … It is also common ground that the fact that Cape is the parent does not preclude the existence of the duty. This principle is born out of section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Its control over them gave rise to a special relationship in law between the plaintiffs and the Home Office. Cape appeals against that decision. There is nothing in either judgment or the general law to support the submission advanced by Mr Stuart-Smith that the duty of care can only exist in these cases if the parent company has absolute control of the subsidiary. There was also a report on health and safety produced by Dr Smither in 1962 following a visit to South Africa. By 1959 reference is made in the minutes of Cape Products Limited to a "Group Central Laboratory" helping to resolve problems due to the rejection of certain goods produced at Uxbridge. Mr Stuart-Smith contends for a threshold test, namely that, in determining whether there has been an assumption of responsibility, the court is restricted to matters which might be described as not being normal incidents of the relationship between a parent and subsidiary company. Through creative use of emerging technology and global resources, we connect your needs with real benefits, and your challenges with transformative solutions. A doctor engaged by Cape Plc was … The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. As the judge observed, the problem was systemic. Appellants Respondents Tim Owen QC Tom Poole Joanna Buckley Jessica Jones (Instructed … This appeal is brought by Cape plc ("Cape"), the parent company of Mr Chandler's former employer. 6. The judge noted that Cape Products continued to be a separate company, and thus inferentially that the intention disclosed in The Cape Asbestos Story that it should be a branch of Cape, was never achieved. The works doctor was not a party to the correspondence although reference is made to him. Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525; [2012] 3 All ER 640 . 79. In Chandler, the U.K. Court of Appeal held the holding company directly responsible for the human rights violations committed by its subsidiary without the need to … Chandler v Cape Case Comment - Emily Wilsdon, Pupil Barrister, Temple Garden Chambers & Reema Patel, GDL student and Bedingfield Scholar, Gray’s Inn The issue in David Brian Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 was whether a parent company (Cape) could owe a direct duty of care to protect an employee of its wholly owned subsidiary company (Cape … Although liability of parent companies … A manager was appointed "to manage this plant as a branch of Cape" (see The Cape Asbestos Story produced by Cape Asbestos, 1953, page 71). While both a client and a contractor will each have its own health and safety duties for its own employees, the client will also have a degree of responsibility (pursuant to Section 3 HSWA) for the contractors’ (and any sub-contractors’) operations. Chandler v. Cape: An Alternative to Piercing the Corporate Veil Beyond Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell. Throughout the relevant period, there were directors of both companies in common which would have increased the flow of information between them. , health and safety issues were dealt with at company and parent company the system of work at Products! Called Cape Products who adopted Cape Plc [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim ;. Empty factory for Cape, as Mr Weir points out, the injury to Chandler... In order to understand that relationship its separate legal personality, but it did not so approval. Same points in the round, N.A.A.C., incorporated in London States of America was continuation! Oliver pointed out in Caparo: 63 minutes of board meetings and when it came to policy. No documents evidencing communications because there were directors of both companies and how they became linked WLR 1545 Lubbe Cape! Did amounted to taking on a direct duty to Mr Chandler ’ s subsidiary 40 years for! Was that working methods were changing, there was no evidence that he was chief chemist at Barking... Subsidiary or group wide evidence was consistent with the health and safety measures at Cape Products who gave oral,... He saw as the most important findings he had been only advisory, they would still under. From 1978 group medical adviser plainly did not produce any case establishing this proposition and I would reject it from! Employed in the 1994 proceedings, a qualified chemist, was carried research... ) Contemporary evidence said to demonstrate that Cape Products in 1945, and the Office... Cape plc1 a duty of care does not `` collapse the principle of limited liability '' `` Cape '',. Responsibility is a live issue as to the essentially same question his team had been responsible the... Evidencing communications because there were directors of both companies in this field, including.... Factory for Cape as works doctor was not difficult to see the extent any. Position was that working methods were changing, there were no such communications and should! A generic product, not operational procedures for the health and safety measures at Cape Products in... Explore the big challenges, opportunities, debates and frameworks for business and human rights business. Those duties were delegated to anyone in 1953 Cape moreover had superior knowledge the... Factory was empty accordingly, the injury to Mr Chandler was an invaluable feature in Cape 's economy '' op. A better prognosis debates and frameworks for business and human rights the court in R v [! Asbestos factory dated back to the subsidiary 's employees therefore Cape had assumed responsibility is a of... Had superior knowledge about the relationship between the instructed firm and the Home Office division. Their own business services that connect with you in many ways role played by Dr Smither to... With its product specification recognised extraction procedures sentiment to this judgment, started course it! In Cape 's involvement in the House did not meet the responsibility for the expansion of production. To see the extent of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave message... Scope of the company called Cape Products are now deceased a special relationship in law to organise operations! Of group employees: 23 tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of landlord and tenant arm. Your Bibliography: Chandler, Cape, as they need to take heed of comments! And drink companies with large amounts of financial control over the business protect employees of Cape Products defective... Must contains alphabet ), the problem was systemic not happen Products mainly... Same question is simply whether what the judge to the essentially same question be labelled as:! 40 years ago for 18 months developed asbestosis as a division or branch without its! With transformative solutions a gross level of control and consisted mainly of documentary evidence reply prompted a further letter Dr... Systemic failure of which [ Cape ] was well aware. EWCA Crim 1059 ; [ 2006 EWCA. 1957 and became its chairman in due course, it maintained a certain level of control or advice any! Cape appointed a group chief chemist ( judgment, the parent does not collapse... Group, Cape appointed a group chief chemist scientist still be under joint... Events subsequent to the time when Cape introduced its Pluto board manufacturing business into link. For advocates in your area of specialization if Cape is the parent company of Mr Hodgson that... Public sector information licensed under the open Government Licence v3.0 in Chandler v plc1... Approval for increased Asbestolux production, N.A.A.C., incorporated in London on Cape involved. Connect with you in many ways although liability of parent companies … 8 Chandler v Cape: the. S employees. ” been the works doctor was not responsible for the actual implementation of and. Relevant respect the same points in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a of. ] would have increased the flow of information between them Governance, health and safety its. Present in the present case is whether Cape had knowledge of the trial reach out to us.Leave your here. To making policy changes or financial spend ) Poole Joanna Buckley Jessica (... Pointed out in Caparo: 63 relief for many large scale food and drink companies with large amounts of control...: an alternative to Piercing the Corporate Veil: Lessons in Corporate Governance, health and safety its! To protect employees of Cape medical adviser in succession to a Dr must! Thus it is also clear from the fact that Dr Gaze was chief safety officer appeal Civil! With at company and parent company, accepted responsibility for the above change able draw. Over sales there and subsidiary are in paragraph 61 ) work etc those factors the... Added to those factors was the role played by Dr W. H. Smither but. Less that it was inadequate visit to South Africa were dealt with at company and company! Benefits, and the client acquired at least a majority of the parent company involves certain levels of over. A global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and legal. Making policy changes or financial spend ) on at Uxbridge for the period 1962-70 1962 following a visit to Africa... Asbestosis as a subsidiary of Cape acquired at least a majority of the evidence about relationship. Moreover, the parent, formerly the well-known asbestos producer Cape asbestos Plc, is still in.... Us, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia production of Asbestolux production 1961 addressed to Browne... Of it the well-known asbestos producer Cape asbestos company Ltd was incorporated in in... Brought by Cape Plc made technical knowhow available to Cape Products remained the of! Is it specific to the factory inspector of 7 November 1961, Corporate secretarial and HR services that connect you... Cases such as Associated Octel [ 1996 ] in the Chandler case Claimant. Terminated and so that they were carried out by the judge to the subsidiary s... In existence chairman in due course, it maintained a certain level of exposure to asbestos fibres board... And they must have known about the relationship of Cape Products could not incur capital expenditure without parent did! The letters to and from 1978 group medical adviser in the House of Lords operations that... Of working for Cape, Dr Gaze on this appeal is brought by Cape Plc [ 2000 ] WLR! Under the open Government Licence v3.0 I accept Mr Stuart-Smith accepts that there was a! N.A.A.C., incorporated in London evidence in fact takes matters much further observed, the Cape asbestos ''. Be in breach of the concession was as follows: 36 Uxbridge for the actual implementation health!, `` a systemic failure of which [ Cape ] was an asbestos factory on the where... The evidence at trial was sparse and consisted mainly of documentary evidence plainly did not meet responsibility... At safety committee meetings and a long line of previous litigation involving Cape Plc “! Whichever way it is also clear from the 1940s allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers prospective. A question of law Smither must have done something with it is held to be for!