Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd & Ors (Ver 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 192 min read

    Summary


    Hilary Term
    [2011] UKSC 17
    On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 499

    JUDGMENT

    Baker (Respondent) v Quantum Clothing Group Limited (Appellants) and others
    Baker (Respondent) v Quantum Clothing Group Limited and others (Pretty Polly Limited) (Appellant)
    Baker (Respondent) v Quantum Clothing Group Limited and others (Meridian Limited) (Appellants)
    before
    Lord Mance
    Lord Kerr
    Lord Clarke
    Lord Dyson
    Lord Saville
    JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

    13 April 2011

    Heard on 22, 23 and 24 November 2010
    Appellant
    Michael Beloff QC
    Dominic Nolan QC
    Simon Beard
    (Instructed by Weightmans LLP)
      Respondent
    John Hendy QC
    Theodore Huckle
    Robert O'Leary
    (Instructed by Wake Smith & Tofields)
         
    Appellant
    Patrick Limb QC
    Toby Stewart
    (Instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP)
      Respondent
    John Hendy QC
    Theodore Huckle
    Robert O'Leary
    (Instructed by Wake Smith & Tofields)
         
    Appellant
    Christopher Purchas QC
    Catherine Foster
    Nadia Whittaker
    (Instructed by Hill Hofstetter LLP)
      Respondent
    John Hendy QC
    Theodore Huckle
    Robert O'Leary
    (Instructed by Wake Smith & Tofields)
         
    Intervener (Guy Warwick Limited)
    Michael Kent QC
    A John Williams
    (Instructed by Keoghs LLP)
       
    LORD MANCE
    Introduction
  1. This appeal concerns the liability of employers in the knitting industry of Derbyshire and Nottingham for hearing loss shown by employees to have been suffered during the years prior to 1 January 1990, the date when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1790) came into force. The central issue is whether liability exists at common law and/or under section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, towards an employee who can establish noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise levels between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd.
  2. Noise is generated by pressure levels in the air. The loudness of a noise depends on the sound pressure level of the energy producing it, measured in decibels (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic, so that each 3dB increase involves a doubling of the sound energy, even though a hearer will not actually perceive a doubled sound pressure as involving much, if any, increase in sound. Noise is rarely pure, it usually consists of a "broadband" combination of sounds at different frequencies, and the human ear is more sensitive to noise at some (particularly middle) frequencies than at others. The sound pressure level across a range of frequencies is in a general industrial context commonly expressed by a weighted measurement described as dB(A). Apart from very loud, immediately damaging noise, with which this case is not concerned, damage to the human ear by noise exposure depends upon both the sound pressure level from time to time and the length of exposure, as well the individual susceptibility of the particular individual. Sound pressure level averaged over a period is described as dB(A)leq. Exposure at a given dB(A)leq for 8 hours is described as dB(A)lepd. Exposure at a given dB(A)lepd for a year gives a Noise Immission Level (NIL), which will build up slowly with further years exposure.
  3. Sound is perceived by the hearer as a result of the conversion by the ear drum of the sound pressure variations in the air into mechanical vibrations. These…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd & Ors (Ver 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] UKSC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.