David v Honeywell Normalair -Garrett Ltd.

A claimant alleging workplace exposure to a hazardous substance must prove exposure, breach of duty and causation. Res ipsa loquitur is inappropriate where the injury does not ordinarily point to negligence and may arise from an underlying genetic condition. Statutory duties concerning risk assessment, health and safety systems, protective equipment and workplace conditions depend on evidence establishing the relevant substance, exposure and circumstances. A settlement covering liability connected with an earlier claim may bar later proceedings based on the same symptoms and alleged exposure. The court may also prevent such proceedings as an abuse of process where the claimant could and should have advanced the later case in the earlier proceedings.

The claimant, a former employee of the defendant, alleged that he had been exposed to depleted uranium during his employment and that the exposure caused various illnesses, including Gitelman’s syndrome and fibrosing alveolitis. The defendant denied exposure, breach of duty and causation. It relied also on a prior compromise under which it had been discharged from further liability connected with an earlier personal injury claim.

The trial proceeded in the claimant’s absence after his ill health prevented further participation. The court determined liability issues only, including exposure, expert evidence, res ipsa loquitur, statutory and common-law duties, causation and the effect of the earlier settlement.

1. The claim failed. The claimant did not establish that depleted uranium had been present in his body, at his workplace, or in the relevant Westland operations. The evidence of Professor Parrish was preferred to that of Dr Durakovic. The medical evidence did not show that the claimant’s symptoms were probably caused by depleted uranium.
2. Res ipsa loquitur did not apply. The claimant’s principal condition was a genetic disorder, and the evidence did not show that the injuries ordinarily occurred without negligence or pointed to a workplace origin. The claimant therefore retained the burden of proving breach of duty.
3. No breach of statutory or common-law duty was proved. The defendant had no reason, on the evidence, to know that depleted uranium was present. There was consequently no breach arising from the absence of a depleted-uranium risk assessment, health and safety regime or training under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. The court declined to speculate about other regulatory breaches in the absence of proof of exposure. No breach of section 4 of the Factories Act 1961 was established, and the duty under section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 did not assist the claimant.
4. The earlier compromise was a complete bar. The reference to depleted uranium in the earlier allocation questionnaire showed that it was connected with the earlier claim. The discharge of liability therefore covered the present claim. Alternatively, applying the principles identified in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2AC1, the fresh proceedings would have been an abuse of process because substantially similar symptoms and the alleged cause could and should have been addressed before settlement.
5. The claim was accordingly dismissed, with the defendant entitled to judgment on liability.