Chandler v Cape Plc [2012]

 Court: Court of Appeal (EWCA)

Facts: David Chandler developed asbestosis due to exposure during his employment with a subsidiary of Cape Plc between 1959 and 1962. By 2007, the subsidiary no longer existed, leaving Chandler to sue Cape Plc, the parent company, for damages. Chandler argued that Cape Plc owed a duty of care for his health and safety. The case revolved around whether Cape Plc, as a parent company, could be held liable for the subsidiary’s employees’ injuries.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, confirming that Cape Plc owed a duty of care to Chandler. The court ruled that Cape Plc had sufficient knowledge of the risks and control over the subsidiary’s operations to be responsible for its employees' health and safety. This duty did not arise from piercing the corporate veil but from Cape Plc’s assumption of responsibility for certain activities, including health and safety matters.

Key Judicial Statement: Arden LJ stated, "A parent company may owe a duty of care to the employees of its subsidiary if it has assumed responsibility for health and safety matters, even without routine intervention in health and safety policies."

💡LevelUpLaw: This case set a precedent for holding parent companies liable for the health and safety of their subsidiaries' employees, broadening the scope of corporate responsibility.