Chandler v Cape Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Moses,Lord Justice McFarlane |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 525 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2011/1272 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 25 April 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 525
[2011] EWHC 951 (QB)
Lady Justice Arden
Lord Justice Moses
and
Lord Justice Mcfarlane
Case No: B3/2011/1272
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEENS BENCH DIVISION)
WYN WILLIAMS J
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
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
Hearing dates: 8–9 February 2012
This appeal is brought by Cape plc ("Cape"), the parent company of Mr Chandler's former employer. The principal issue is whether Cape owed a direct duty of care to the employees of its subsidiary to advise on, or ensure, a safe system of work for them. The respondent, Mr Chandler, has recently contracted asbestosis as a result of a short period of employment over fifty years ago with Cape Building Products Ltd ("Cape Products"). That company is no longer in existence. However, its parent company, Cape, formerly the well-known asbestos producer Cape Asbestos plc, is still in existence. On 14 April 2011, Wyn Williams J held that Cape was liable to Mr Chandler on the basis not of any form of vicarious liability or agency or enterprise liability, but on the basis of the common law concept of assumption of responsibility. Cape appeals against that decision.
We understand that this is 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, and thus this appeal is of some importance not only to the parties but to other cases.
There is no issue about whether the system of work in this case was unsafe. Mr Chandler worked out of doors loading bricks produced by a brick manufacturing arm of Cape Products. Asbestos was produced on the same site in a factory with open sides, and dust from that factory migrated into the area where Mr Chandler worked. Cape in effect accepts that Cape Products failed in its duty to Mr Chandler. There was, held the judge, "a systemic failure of which [Cape] was well aware." (Judgment, paragraph 73).
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"). Cape Products was dissolved some years ago. Cape Products carried employer's liability insurance. However, this included an exception for pneumoconiosis. That exception was held by Rix J in Cape plc v Iron Trades Employers Liability Association Ltd [2004] Lloyd's Rep IR 75, to cover asbestosis. 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. There is, therefore, no relevant policy of employer's liability insurance to protect Mr Chandler.
The evidence at trial was sparse and consisted mainly of documentary evidence. There was only one witness who gave oral evidence, namely Dr Kevin Browne. He was 89 years old at the date of the trial. He had been the works doctor at Cape Products from 1974, and from 1978 group medical adviser in succession to a Dr Smither. In those circumstances, this court is substantially in the same position as the judge to the review the 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. This court is required to be satisfied for itself that the facts justified the imposition of liability.
The facts
The evidence about the relationship of Cape and Cape Products is mainly circumstantial. It can be separated into a number of threads although some of the evidence belongs to more than one thread. The threads may for convenience be labelled as follows:
a) Origins of Cape Products' asbestos business
b) Relationship between Cape and Cape Products
c) Technical assistance given by Cape to Cape Products
d) Contemporary evidence which was said to demonstrate that Cape was involved with the health and safety of employees of Cape Products
e) Evidence as to Cape's involvement in the asbestos business of Cape Products
f) Events subsequent to the relevant period.
(a) Origins of Cape Products' asbestos business:
Cape was involved in the production of asbestos from the nineteenth century and had several factories in the UK. Its principal factory was in Barking, near London. 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. Cape Products, then known as Uxbridge Flint Brick Company Ltd, had two factories on a single site at Cowley Works, Uxbridge, some 30 miles away. One of these factories had been used for making cement pipes but that use had been terminated and so that factory was empty.
Cape acquired at least a majority of the share capital of Cape Products in 1945, and the outstanding shares in about 1953. Cape installed the necessary plant into the empty factory. 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). Production of Asbestolux, a new form of non-combustible asbestos board, started. "In a short time, [Cape Products] was an invaluable feature in Cape's economy" (op. cit. page 72). However, it is noteworthy that at no relevant point in time did Cape cease to be an operating company itself or merely hold the shares in its subsidiaries as if it were an investment holding company.
(b) Relationship between Cape and Cape Products:
Cape started out as a tenant of Cape Products' site. Cape Products modified the empty factory for Cape's use in the production of Asbestolux (board minutes of 20 November 1954). 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.
The relationship could have remained one of landlord and tenant on arm's length terms but that did not happen. Slowly but surely, Cape Products became a part of an integrated group of companies headed by Cape:
i) On 20 March 1956, the board of Cape (not that of Cape Products) gave its approval to a separate administration at Uxbridge for dealing with all aspects of the management, production and sales of Asbestolux "in accordance with company policy". On one reading, this is inconsistent with Cape Products being able to be in charge of its own management systems.
ii) At all material times there was one or more directors of Cape on the board of Cape Products.
iii) Furthermore, most of the board meetings of Cape Products for which we have been shown minutes were held at Cape's Head Office in central London, rather than at the Cowley Works.
iv) On 17 July 1956, Cape decided to sell the assets of its asbestos business at Uxbridge to Cape Products and to change the name of Cape Products to its existing name: there could be no other reason for a sale followed by a change of name other than that Cape wished Cape Products to be seen as part of the larger Cape group.
v) Cape's board minutes for 25 April 1961 and 16 May 1961 confirm Cape Products' status as a member of the group. They refer to discussions taking place at Uxbridge for the expansion of Asbestolux production. The board minutes of Cape for 31 October 1961 additionally gave approval for increased Asbestolux production.
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. I agree. Cape could have treated Cape Products as a division or branch without removing its separate legal personality, but it did not so. Cape Products remained the owner of its own assets and handled its own sales and dealings with third parties.
On 26 June 1961, the board of Cape Products agreed to enter a licence with a Japanese company, Nippon Asbestos Company ("Nippon"), for the manufacture and sale of Asbestolux, "without prejudice to approval by the board of the parent company". (Asbestolux appears to have been a generic product, not one protected by intellectual property rights). 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. It was acting as a company which had been integrated into a larger group of companies.
In turn, the Cape board took an interest in issues relating to the management by subsidiaries of their own business. On 31 July 1962, for instance, Cape's board discussed action proposed to solve a production difficulty at the Uxbridge factory.
(c) Technical assistance:
(i) Know-how:
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. There is evidence that it was indeed shared. For instance, the board minutes of Cape Products for 26 June 1961 refer to the mixing of chrysotile fibre into the products of Cape Products "in accordance with agreed group policy". The same minutes refer to a proposal for Cape Products to take over a machine from the Barking factory although it appears this proposal did not come to fruition.
(ii) Product development:
Dr Gaze, a qualified chemist, had been employed by Cape at its Barking factory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Thompson v The Renwick Group Plc
...a subsidiary company from the risk of injury arising out of exposure to asbestos at work is afforded by the decision of this court in Chandler v Cape plc [2012] 1 WLR 3111. The facts there however are far removed from those which are under consideration in this appeal. 30 The claimant Chand......
- Ahmad Zahri bin Mirza Abdul Hamid v Aims Cyberjaya Sdn Bhd
-
Natixis S.A. v Marex Financial
...each other: “62. It is clear that parts of the threefold test and the assumption of responsibility test overlap: Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111, at paragraph 62 (Arden LJ). The different tests usually lead to the same answer and can be used as cross-checks on e......
-
Dominic Liswaniso Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another
...in the context of the appellants' argument that the iteration of these factors which were found to give rise to a duty of care in Chandler v. Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111, is not sufficient to give rise to a properly arguable duty of care in the present 23 The Particula......
-
In Counsel - July 2012
...4 The Court of Appeal decision in Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 is available at 5 The decision in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is available at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/2.html. 6 The High Court decision in Paros Plc v Worldlink Group Plc [2012] EWHC 394......
-
Assumption of Direct Responsibility for a Subsidiary's Liabilities – Is the Corporate Limited Liability Veil in Tatters?
...Raymond L. Sweigart, Samuel J. Pearse, Amina Adam] In the landmark decision of Chandler v Cape plc (2012) EWCA Civ 525 the Court of Appeal for England and Wales has upheld a High Court decision that a parent company owed a direct duty of care towards an employee of one of its subsidiaries t......
-
Parent Company Liability: No arguable basis to impose a duty of care on UK parent company
...chain. Click here to download PDF. 1 AAA and others v Unilever PLC and Tea Kenya Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1532. 2 Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525; Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1528. 3 Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another [2018] EWCA Civ 191 at [196......
-
Corporate Veil Will Not Be Pierced
...Safety failing in its subsidiaries. Background David Thompson v Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635 considers Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, a Court of Appeal case which caused immense concern to companies. In Chandler, it was held that a parent company owed a direct duty of car......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...(El-Hojouj/Derbal) (Neth.); Rb. 's-Gravenhage 14 september 2011, NJF 2011, 427 (Silan/Netherlands) (Neth.); Chandler v. Cape PLC, [2012] EWCA (Civ) 525, [1], [82] (appeal taken from Q.B.); Motto v. Trafigura Ltd., [2011] EWCA (Civ) 1150, [145] (appeal taken from Q.B.); Guerrero v. Monterric......
-
An Exception to Jesner: Preventing U.s. Corporations and Their Subsidiaries from Avoiding Liability for Harms Caused Abroad
...(TCC) 975 [51]-[52] (Eng.).259. Lungowe v. Vedanta Res. PLC [2017] EWCA (Civ) 1528 [88] (Eng.).260. See e.g., Chandler v. Cape PLC [2012] EWCA (Civ) 525 (Eng.) (holding that the parent company assumed a duty of care to ensure the health and safety of the subsidiary's employees).261. Lungowe......
-
L’oratoire Saint-joseph Du Mont-royal v Jj and the Growing Complexity of Quebec’s Authorization Criteria
...is no anchor defendant” at para 5); Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc, [2017] EWCA Civ 1528, [2017] 10 WLUK 344; Chandler v Cape Plc, [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 4 WLUK 528 [Cape Plc]; Guerrero v Monterrico Metals Plc, [2009] EWHC 2475, [2009] 10 WLUK 446; Lubbe v Cape PLC, [2000] UKHL 41, [2......
-
Introduction
...is no anchor defendant” at para 5); Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc, [2017] EWCA Civ 1528, [2017] 10 WLUK 344; Chandler v Cape Plc, [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 4 WLUK 528 [Cape Plc]; Guerrero v Monterrico Metals Plc, [2009] EWHC 2475, [2009] 10 WLUK 446; Lubbe v Cape PLC, [2000] UKHL 41, [2......