UK: Sins Of The Father

Last Updated: 19 September 2012
Article by Willie Manners and Richard Byam-Cook

It is a well-established principle of company law that a company has a separate legal personality from its members (Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897]). In certain limited circumstances, such as where the corporate structure has been used for the purposes of a fraud or as a device to avoid an existing contractual or legal obligation, the court will 'pierce the corporate veil' but, as a general rule, shareholders will not be liable for a company's acts or omissions.

However, in the recent case of Chandler v Cape Plc [2012], the Court of Appeal held that a parent company owed a duty of care to an employee of one of its former subsidiaries. The decision was based on well-established rules about the tort of negligence, rather than on the basis that the corporate veil should be pierced, and leaves intact the principle that a company has a separate legal identity from its shareholders. Nevertheless, it may have wide reaching implications for parent companies and other shareholders since it means that company owners can no longer guarantee that their liability in relation to a subsidiary will be limited to the value of their investment.

This article will discuss the facts of this case, the circumstances in which a parent company might be liable to a subsidiary's employees and the potential implications this may have on the way corporate groups are organised and managed.

Background to the claim

Cape Plc (Cape) was founded in 1893 and for over 70 years was one of the world's largest miners of asbestos and producers of fire-resistant asbestos products. The asbestos was mined in South Africa and made into asbestos products through a network of factories across the UK.

In 1945 Cape was looking to expand its production capacity and to do this it decided to rent an empty factory at a site some thirty miles away from Cape's main UK facility. Cape rented this site off a third party, Uxbridge Flint Brick Company Ltd (UFBC) and it managed the production of asbestos on these premises for a number of years (as a tenant) before eventually purchasing UFBC in 1953. Shortly thereafter, in 1956, Cape sold its asbestos business to UFBC and changed UFBC's name to Cape Building Products Ltd (Cape Products).

Cape Products operated two distinct businesses at its premises: i) its asbestos business and ii) a brick-making business. These businesses were operated in separate buildings; the asbestos production took place in an open-sided warehouse, which was adjacent to the brick-making site. Mr Chandler, the claimant in this case, was employed in Cape Products' brick-making business between 1959 and 1962. Due to the open sides of the asbestos factory, asbestos dust frequently blew out over the area in which Mr Chandler worked.

In 2007, long after his employment had terminated, Mr Chandler discovered that he had contracted asbestosis. It was accepted that he had contracted this as a result of his employment with Cape Products. However, Cape Products had been dissolved a number of years ago and its employer's liability insurance did not cover asbestosis. Mr Chandler therefore brought a negligence claim against Cape Products' parent company, Cape, on the grounds that Cape and Cape Products were joint tortfeasors who were jointly and severally liable to pay him damages.

The tort of negligence

In order to succeed in an action for negligence it is necessary for the claimant to establish that:

  • the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant;
  • the defendant breached the duty owed to the claimant; and
  • the defendant's breach of duty caused the claimant to suffer recoverable loss.

At the time Mr Chandler was employed by Cape Products, it was known that people risked contracting asbestosis if they were exposed to asbestos in substantial concentrations. As a result of this Cape accepted that if it was found to have owed a duty of care to Mr Chandler, it would have breached that duty and that the damage caused to Mr Chandler was foreseeable. Therefore the only issue was whether Cape owed a duty of care to Mr Chandler.

The Courts have developed three interrelated tests to determine whether or not a party owes a duty of care to another, namely:

a) The 'assumption of responsibility test', which asks whether the defendant has undertaken a responsibility towards the claimant to exercise reasonable care and skill (see Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995]).

b) The 'threefold test' which asks whether i) the damage that has occurred was foreseeable; ii) there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties; and iii) it is fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care (see Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]).

c) The 'incremental test' whereby the law recognises categories of cases in which duties are owed by analogy with existing cases where it has already been established that duties of care are owed (see Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991]).

In this case, the focus was on the threefold Caparo test and, in particular, the second limb (proximity) – there being little dispute that the other two limbs were satisfied. However, in the Court of Appeal, Arden LJ made some interesting comments about the assumption of responsibility test, saying that it fell within the second and third limbs of the Caparo test. She also suggested that the phrase 'assumption' of responsibility was something of a misnomer because it wrongly implies that the court has to find that a defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility. She added that the phrase 'attachment' of liability might be more apt.

First Instance

At first instance, the judge looked at the evidence regarding how the Cape group was run.

1) H e noted that there were a number of common directors. The chairman of each subsidiary was an executive director of the parent company and reported to the managing director of the parent company.

2) H e concluded that the managing director of each subsidiary company had a wide measure of autonomy in day-to-day matters but was responsible to the chairman of the subsidiary concerned and consulted him on all major policy decisions.

3) H e found that the board of Cape was involved in major decisions over production, expansion and funding throughout the group. This left him in little doubt that Cape exercised control over some of the activities of Cape Products from the time it came into existence and during Mr Chandler's period of employment.

Those findings (which are probably fairly representative of a number of group companies) were not the end point of the judge's deliberations but set the scene for his subsequent findings.

Cape argued that, although it was entitled to exercise control over a subsidiary from time to time, this did not mean it controlled all important decisions and in fact many decisions were taken without reference to Cape. This was accepted by the judge but he said it was enough for Mr Chandler to establish that Cape either controlled or took overall responsibility for the measures adopted by Cape Products to protect it against harm from asbestos exposure. In that respect, the evidence revealed that:

1) there was a group medical adviser from the late 1940s with responsibility for the health and welfare of all the employees within the group. In 1961 the group medical adviser was involved in an investigation of an employee with an asbestos-related disease at Uxbridge;

2) there was a group chief scientist or chief chemist concerned with the suppression of dust and not only in factories directly operated by Cape;

3) C ape had originally adopted the working processes for the production of Asbestolux at the factory at Uxbridge and these had been inherited by Cape Products;

4) as and when Cape felt it appropriate, it did control what Cape Products was doing regarding the Asbestolux production process (particularly that which involved substantial expenditure).

The judge concluded it was Cape, not Cape Products, which dictated policy in relation to health and safety issues. He accepted that Cape Products retained some responsibility for the implementation of health and safety policies. However, he took the view that if Cape had intervened at any time and ordered Cape Products to alter its working practices, Cape Products would have 'bowed to its intervention'. On that basis, the first instance judge found that there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between Mr Chandler and Cape to establish that Cape owed Mr Chandler a duty of care.

Court of Appeal

Cape appealed this decision on a number of grounds, including that the judge applied the wrong test for the imposition of liability on a parent company. In particular, Cape submitted that the judge erred in that he did not hold that Mr Chandler was required to prove features in the relationship between Cape and Cape Products that went beyond the usual characteristics of the relationship between parent and subsidiary. (Cape identified the following as being normal incidents of the parent/subsidiary relationship: obtaining the approval to capital expenditure; having common directors; transferring bank accounts to the same bank, producing the same product and the fact that the parent controlled certain aspects of the subsidiary's activities.)

However, Lady Justice Arden, who gave the only reasoned judgment in the Court of Appeal, rejected this argument on the basis that i) there was no authority to support it and ii) that it is not possible to say what is or is not a 'normal incident' of the parent/subsidiary relationship. Arden LJ also rejected the argument that a duty of care can only exist if a parent has complete control of a subsidiary. In her view, the question was simply whether what Cape did amounted to taking on a direct duty of care towards Cape Products' employees.

On that issue, Arden LJ's reasoning was similar to that of the first instance judge. She noted that, having initially established its own business at Uxbridge and having maintained a level of control over the business once it had been transferred to Cape Products, Cape knew that the Uxbridge asbestos business was carried on in a way which risked the health and safety of others at Uxbridge, most particularly the employees engaged in the brick-making business. While Cape was not responsible for the actual implementation of health and safety procedures at Uxbridge, the problems in this case were not caused by the failure of day-to-day management. They were systemic in nature. Cape could, and did on other matters, give Cape Products instructions as to how it should operate and the evidence showed that Cape Products complied with those instructions. Furthermore, Cape had superior knowledge of the nature and management of asbestos risks and was, therefore, better placed than Cape Products to understand those risks.

Against that background, Arden LJ had 'no doubt' that Cape had assumed a duty of care to either: i) advise Cape Products on what steps it had to take to protect its employees from a risk of asbestosis; or ii) to ensure that such steps were in fact taken. Whichever way the duty was formulated, Cape had failed to comply with it and the injury to Mr Chandler was the result.

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568

Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145

Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC22

Comment

Arden LJ emphasised that there was no imposition of liability or assumption of responsibility by reason only that Cape was the parent of Cape Products. She was also clear that this was not a case of piercing the corporate veil. The decision, therefore, makes no inroads into the principle that a company has a separate legal identity from its shareholders.

However, while the existence of a parent/ subsidiary relationship does not necessarily mean that the parent will owe a duty of care to the subsidiary's employees, it does not preclude the existence of such a duty either. Arden LJ explained that: 'this case demonstrates that in appropriate circumstances the law may impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary's employees'. She added that those circumstances include a situation where, as in this case:

1) there is an overlap between the businesses operated by the parent and the subsidiary;

2) the parent has superior knowledge of the health and safety aspects of that business;

3) the subsidiary's system of work is unsafe and the parent company knew about this (or ought to have known); and

4) the parent knew or ought to have foreseen that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on the parent using its knowledge for the employees' protection. This does not require a claimant to show the parent was in the habit of intervening in the health and safety practices of the company – it may be sufficient to show that the parent has a practice of intervening in the trading operations of the subsidiary, for example production and funding issues.

The Court of Appeal will undoubtedly have felt some sympathy for Mr Chandler. He had contracted a serious illness and, if he had failed in his claim against Cape, he would have been left without a remedy. It remains to be seen whether the courts will adopt the same approach to claims brought in less extreme circumstances or outside the context of a personal injury claim. However, the situation described in paragraphs one to four above is not particularly unusual and parent companies may see an increase in the number of claims they receive from employees of their subsidiaries or former subsidiaries.

Parent companies of subsidiaries that operate hazardous businesses (or parent companies that used to own such subsidiaries) may wish to review their insurance policies to ensure that they have appropriate cover for any claims which employees or former employees might bring against them. Purchasers of companies in high-risk industries should also conduct wider due diligence than hitherto conducted in order to evaluate whether there is a risk of such claims being made.

The decision may also cause some corporate groups to reconsider how health and safety and environmental issues are dealt with – while bearing in mind that, the more control parent companies exercise over the implementation of health and safety policies, the greater the chance they will be found to have assumed responsibility for them. A sensible approach may be for parent companies to ensure that all available information, advice and, where appropriate, research is passed on to subsidiaries and to oversee health and safety procedures with a view to eradicating any systemic failures but at the same time to make it clear that the implementation of those policies is the responsibility of the subsidiary.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.