FRANK BAKER v. TATE & LYLE PLC (2012)
Mr. Baker was briefly employed by a company as a lagger’s labourer during the 1963-1964 tax year, when he was 16-years old. At that time, the company sent Mr. Baker to do a job at one of the factories of Tate & Lyle, the defendants in this action. When carrying out his job at Tate & Lyle’s factory, which lasted for about five weeks, Mr. Baker was exposed to substantial quantities of asbestos. Mr. Baker contracted mesothelioma when he turned 65 and sought compensation.
When Mr. Baker commenced his action, the company who employed him was no longer trading and its employer’s liability (EL) insurers could not be traced. Therefore, Mr. Baker was only left with the option of pursuing Tate & Lyle. Mr. Baker claimed that Tate & Lyle breached the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (the regulations) and section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, which imposed a duty on Tate & Lyle to provide a safe means of access and place of employment.
Mr. Baker alleged that Tate & Lyle knew that asbestos was dangerous, that he was exposed to asbestos and that his work took place at the factory. Tate & Lyle could not produce any evidence to challenge Mr. Baker’s allegations. As such, a clear breach of duty and causation were established. Tate & Lyle could have had a defence under the Regulations had Tate & Lyle been able to show that they gave Mr. Baker a breathing apparatus or that there was no proper ventilation in factory. However, Tate & Lyle failed to provide such evidence and the claimant was awarded damages amounting to £205,000.
Mr. Baker was successful in his claim because the defendants were still in business. His ordeal could have taken a turn for the worse had Tate & Lyle been wound up in the past. Had the EL insurers been traced, Mr. Baker would no doubt have pursued 100% of his claim against them. They, the EL insurers, would then be able to seek a contribution from Tate & Lyle. However, it is not clear what level of contribution the EL insurers could have obtained.