4.Duty of Care: Chandler v Cape Plc.
The rejection of the liability claims in Adams v Cape Industries Plc. Led the plaintiffs…
The claimant Mr. Chandler was employed by Cape Building Products Ltd. (Cape Products),…
1. The damage was foreseeable.…
2. There was proximity between the parent and the subsidiary.…
3. It was fair, just and reasonable to hold that the parent had a duty of care.…
It was held that the test was satisfied, and the Cape Plc. was liable for the health…
(…) in appropriate circumstances the law may impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary’s employees. Those circumstances include a situation where, as in the present case, (1) the businesses of the parent and subsidiary are in a relevant respect the same; (2) the parent has, or ought to have; superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry; (3) the subsidiary’s system of work is unsafe as the parent company knew, or ought to have known; and (4) the parent knew or ought to have foreseen that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on its using that superior knowledge for the employees’ protection. For the purposes of (4) it is not necessary to show that the parent is in the practice of intervening in the health and safety policies of the subsidiary. The court will look at the relationship between the companies more …
After Chandler v Cape Plc., parent companies felt the need to measure their involvement…
EN
TR
