Actionable Personal Injury through Sensitisation: Dryden & Ors v. Johnson Matthey PLC [2018] UKSC 18

Introduction

Dryden & Ors v. Johnson Matthey PLC is a landmark judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on March 21, 2018. The case centers around employees (the claimants) who worked in factories producing catalytic converters for Johnson Matthey Plc, where they were exposed to platinum salts. Due to alleged negligence by the company in maintaining a safe working environment, the claimants developed platinum salt sensitisation. This condition raised crucial legal questions: whether sensitisation constitutes actionable personal injury under negligence and breach of statutory duty, and if not, whether the claimants could recover purely economic losses.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the claimants, overturning previous decisions by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. The core determination was that platinum salt sensitisation does qualify as actionable personal injury. This recognition allows the claimants to pursue claims for damages based on the physical and economic harm resulting from Johnson Matthey Plc's negligence and breach of statutory duty.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed two pivotal House of Lords cases: Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758 and Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] AC 281.

Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd: This case involved steel dressers who developed pneumoconiosis, a lung disease, without immediate symptoms. The House of Lords held that such condition constitutes actionable personal injury, emphasizing that lack of symptoms does not negate the existence of harm.
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd: Here, employees developed pleural plaques from asbestos exposure. The House of Lords decided that pleural plaques themselves did not amount to actionable personal injury as they did not cause physical harm or reduce life expectancy.

These cases formed the backbone of the arguments regarding whether platinum salt sensitisation should be classified similarly to pleural plaques or pneumoconiosis.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused on whether platinum salt sensitisation, despite being asymptomatic, caused actionable harm significant enough to qualify as personal injury. While the Court of Appeal had likened it to pleural plaques—deeming it non-actionable—the Supreme Court distinguished sensitisation as a condition that directly impairs the claimants' ability to work in environments where further exposure could lead to symptomatic allergies.

The Court emphasized that:

Sensitisation constitutes a physiological change that restricts employment options, thereby causing significant economic and personal harm.
The condition is comparable to developing a sensitivity to commonplace elements like sunlight, where the impairment directly affects one’s capability to engage in normal activities or employment.
The existence of an implied contractual duty to maintain a safe working environment enforces the employer's responsibility for any resulting impairments.

Thus, the Court concluded that the claimants had indeed suffered actionable personal injury through their sensitisation, warranting damages for both personal and economic losses.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in UK tort law by expanding the definition of actionable personal injury. It clarifies that not only manifest physical ailments but also physiological changes that impair employment and quality of life can constitute personal injury. This has broad implications for workplace safety, employer liabilities, and the scope of negligence claims. Employers are now more accountable for conditions that may not present immediate symptoms but can lead to significant long-term harm, thereby reinforcing the importance of maintaining stringent health and safety standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sensitisation and Allergic Reaction

Sensitisation refers to the process by which an individual's immune system becomes responsive to a substance (in this case, platinum salts). This does not immediately cause symptoms but heightens the likelihood of an allergic reaction upon further exposure. An allergic reaction can involve physical symptoms such as eye irritation, skin rashes, or respiratory issues.

Actionable Personal Injury

Actionable personal injury encompasses any disease or impairment that significantly affects an individual's physical health or capability. Importantly, the presence of symptoms is not a prerequisite for a condition to be actionable. What matters is whether the condition causes substantial harm or impairs one's ability to engage in normal activities or employment.

Pure Economic Loss

Pure economic loss refers to financial losses that do not stem from any physical injury or property damage. In tort law, recovering purely economic losses is generally not permitted unless there is a specific duty of care established. In this case, once sensitisation was recognized as personal injury, the focus shifted from pure economic loss to compensable personal injury damages.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Dryden & Ors v. Johnson Matthey PLC represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of personal injury within UK tort law. By recognizing platinum salt sensitisation as actionable personal injury, the Court acknowledged the profound impact that physiological changes, even in the absence of immediate symptoms, can have on an individual's livelihood and quality of life. This judgment not only broadens the scope of what constitutes personal injury but also reinforces the responsibility of employers to ensure safe working environments, thereby potentially influencing future negligence and employment-related claims.