Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Can individuals successfully claim for personal injury with physiological change but no actual symptoms? William Chapman, barrister at 7 Bedford Row, suggests that Greenway v Johnson Matthey provides clarity on actionable injuries.
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants’ appeal against the judge’s decision that the defendant was not liable in damages to them for breach of statutory duty, negligence or breach of contract arising out of their employment
by the defendant at its chemical plants. Among other things, it held that the presence of economic loss did not convert a physiological change, which did not, in itself, qualify as an actionable injury. Further, since there was no implied contractual
term according to which the defendant was obliged to protect the claimants in relation to their financial losses arising in the circumstances of the case, so, equally, there could be no duty in tort to protect them in relation to the pure economic
loss they had suffered by reason of those financial losses.
The claimant employees of the defendant had been negligently, and in breach of the employer’s statutory duty and in breach of contract, exposed to excessive amounts of platinum. They had developed ‘platinum sensitisation’. When this
was discovered they were removed from their line of work that put them in contact with platinum and suffered economic loss as a result. The contract provided for an ex gratia payment in such circumstances but did not preclude an employee from bringing
a claim for damages for personal injury.
The key issues were whether:
The Court of Appeal rejected:
‘…an attack by the appellants, from various different directions, on the conventional view that under the law governing the relationship between employer and employee, whether in contract or in tort, an employee needs to be able to show
that he suffered physical injury…in order to be able to claim substantive damages which cover also the financial losses he has suffered as a result of such injury’.
The Court of Appeal has scored a ‘bright line’ between those who qualify as suffering from a physical injury and those who do not. In doing so the court has accepted that there will be ‘marginal cases [that] fall close to the dividing
line created by the rule yet fail to satisfy it’ and that:
‘the law does not furnish a remedy for every harm suffered by an individual, and in particular does not do so where the infliction of the harm does not constitute a ‘wrong’ in the contemplation of the law…’
What tipped the case against the claimants on this issue was that they were not suffering any adverse physical symptoms now and would never suffer adverse physical symptoms in the future. That was distinguished from, for example, the position in Cartledge v Jopling  AC 758,  1 All ER 341 where the claimants contracted pneumoconiosis, which ‘makes the sufferer far more susceptible to tuberculosis or bronchitis or other pulmonary afflictions’.
The court refused to imply into the contract any term that held the employee harmless from economic loss caused by a breach that did not cause physical injury. It was a particular factor in this case against implying such a term that the contract did
provide for an ex gratia payment. Those examples on previous authority where the court had imposed obligations on employers that covered pure economic loss involved a voluntary assumption of responsibility by the employer where it has been ‘fair,
just and reasonable’ to impose the obligation.
There are many employees who are exposed to chemicals and run the risk of becoming sensitised to them if the employer does not take adequate care. In order to protect themselves in advance they or their union will wish to ensure the contract expressly
provide adequate compensation in the event they become sensitised
If they do become sensitised but do not suffer (and will never suffer) symptoms any claim in tort is doomed to fail. The judgment at least provides clarity to potential claimants and their lawyers. There should be no implications for employees who contract
dermatitis or compromise their pulmonary function as a result of negligent exposure.
It was an important factor against implying a term into the contract that the contract did expressly provide for an ex gratia payment. An interesting question is whether the courts would be prepared to imply a term where the contract was silent on the
consequences of a breach of health and safety measures leading to economic loss. One can imagine a set of facts—say where there had been a gross failing of health and safety measures that severely handicapped the employees finding alternative
employment—where there would be a substantial injustice if there were no remedy for the employee.
Interviewed by Nicola Laver. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234