Harry Steinberg and Edward Ramsay (instructed by Slater & Gordon ) for the claimants; Michael Kent QC (instructed by Weightmans LLP ) for the defendant.
The five claimants were employed by the defendant at its chemical plant. As part of the defendant’s routine checks, the claimants had been tested and were found to have become sensitised to platinum salts. Consequently, all of the claimants had been taken off any work involving potential contact with platinum. They brought claims for damages for their loss of earnings based upon the defendant’s breach of statutory duty, negligence and for breach of contract. The claimants alleged that they had been wrongfully exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts and had consequently developed a sensitivity to platinum, which was a personal injury cognisable under the law of tort. The issues for the court were whether the claimants had suffered actionable injury for the purposes of the claim in tort and whether they could recover more than nominal damages in respect of their contractual claims.
At paras 14–33 the judge dealt with the issue of whether the claimants had suffered actionable injuries for the purposes of the claim in tort and concluded that the correct approach was to analyse the claimants’ sensitisation in terms of the physical or physiological harm it may be causing, not any financial loss which they had suffered consequent upon that harm. Properly analysed, the claim was one for pure economic loss. The claimants had not suffered actionable injuries and the claim in tort was therefore dismissed. In relation to the contract claim, the claims for pure economic loss fell outside the parameters of the defendant’s duty and that claim was also dismissed.