Chandler v Cape Case Comment - Emily Wilsdon, Pupil Barrister, Temple Garden Chambers & Reema Patel, GDL student and Bedingfield Scholar, Gray’s Inn
18/06/12. The issue in David Brian Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 was whether a parent company (Cape) could owe a direct duty of care to protect an employee of its wholly owned subsidiary company (Cape Products) against asbestos risks. Cape appealed a decision by Wyn Williams J [2011] EWHC 951 (QB) that it owed a duty of care to Mr. Chandler on the basis that it had assumed responsibility for his health and safety at Cape Products.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Arden LJ, found that it could. In so finding, the Court said that the ‘corporate veil’ remained intact. Liability was not determined by the fact of a parent-subsidiary relationship, or on the basis of an assumption of responsibility as found below, but on the application of the test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
Mr. Chandler, an employee of Cape Products, contracted asbestosis . He worked at an...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/hroe
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...







