google-site-verification: google2c3d1a1e44131ecc.html

Parent companies owe a duty of care to employees of subsidiary companies

22 May 2012 | David Widdowson

The Court of Appeal has held that parent companies may owe a direct duty of care to employees of subsidiary companies.

Background

The Claimant was employed by a subsidiary company of the Respondent approximately 50 years ago. Approximately 5 years ago the Claimant was diagnosed with asbestosis. The subsidiary company was no longer in existence and therefore, the Claimant brought a claim against the parent company of his former employer.

The Court of Appeal found that the real question is whether the way in which a parent company operates amounts to assuming a duty of care for employees of its subsidiaries. They identified a number of circumstances as relevant. These include where:

  • the business of the parent and subsidiary are in a relevant respect the same;
  • the parent has, or ought to have, superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry;
  • the subsidiary’s system of work is unsafe as the parent company knew, or ought to have known; and
  • 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.

In this particular case the Court of Appeal held that the holding company owed the Claimant a duty of care which it had breached.

Commentary

This is a potentially important case. Prior to this judgment it was very rare for a holding company to be held to be liable in respect of an employee of a subsidiary. As a result of this judgment that will change where parent companies take an active role in the operational aspects of its subsidiaries.

In order to minimise the chances of a parent company being held liable in similar situations, companies should review their group structures and the role of the parent company in them, bearing in mind the considerations set out above. Depending on the parent’s involvement a re-organisation may be required to reduce the likelihood of the parent company of an employing company being found liable. Insurance arrangements should also be reviewed.

Resources

Chandler v Cape plc

For further information or to discuss the issues raised, please contact David Widdowson or Stephen Wright
on +44 (0)20 3051 5711.

Disclaimer

Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article. For further legal information click here.

Circular 230 disclosure

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The author

David Widdowson
Partner
Employment Law
Mediation
Business Coaching
D: +44 (0) 207 036 8388
T: +44 (0) 203 051 5711
F: +44 (0) 203 051 5712

Also by the author

3 March 2021
Alternatives to Redundancies | Employers & HR Specialists
3 March 2021
UK Budget 2021: Furlough Scheme extended until September 2021
22 February 2021
UK Supreme Court Ruling – Uber Drivers Entitled to Workers’ Rights
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to the minute on our latest news and insights?