Greenway v Johnson Matthey Plc, High Court, 2014
Facts
The claimant employees were exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts and as a result had developed sensitivity to platinum. Since this sensitivity can, with further exposure, lead to an allergy, the employees were removed from their regular posts and eventually handed in their notice.
Much of the case involved a comparison between platinum sensitisation and pleural plaques. The claimants sought to argue that they had sustained actionable injury because the sensitivity had led directly to a reduction in their earning capacity.
Held
Jay J held that there was no actionable injury in tort in this case.
The progression to an allergy would not occur if the employee is removed from the source of the sensitisation. Although such a removal may result in economic loss for the employee, that is not the same as an injury. The sensitivity in itself is not harmful.
Accordingly, the claim in tort failed (as did the alternative claim in contract, because there had been no personal injury – only economic loss suffered without personal injury).
What can we learn?
- The case is helpful to defendant employers. In order for there to be a valid claim in tort, there must be an injury, not the possibility of one developing; pure economic loss will not suffice
- ––However, employers will still need to ensure that employees who are placed in positions where injury could occur are monitored closely and steps taken to remove them from potential harm if issues develop
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.