Our employment solicitors cover all areas of law to do with employment law relating to individuals and businesses including advising on such issues as employment contracts, written terms, working hours, TUPE, trades unions, health & safety, redundancy, compromise agreements, pay, discrimination including sex discrimination, age related discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, employment tribunals and so on.
We have solicitors throughout the Yorkshire & Humber region including Leeds solicitors, Bradford solicitors, York solicitors, Hull solicitors, Sheffield solicitors, Harrogate solicitors, Wakefield solicitors, Huddersfield solicitors and areas in between.
Articles
Pertinent Legislation
The Disability Discrimination Act 2004
Health and Safety at Work Act,
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
The Work and Families Act 2006
Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2008
Working –Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Flexible Working Regulations 2002
Employment Act 2008
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
New Equality Bill
Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003
Our Solicitors
All our members are highly trained lawyers with many years’ experience. Post your enquiry through www.LegalandFinancial100.co.uk and we will pass this to our employment solicitors.
Employers running businesses where noise is an issue may now face claims from employees dating as far back as 1978 following a recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Baker –v- Quantum Clothing.
Quantum Clothing was found liable for the deafness of a former employee following a detailed consideration of the case by the Court of Appeal. Baker had worked in the company knitting factory since 1971 and the court ascertained that she had been subjected to noise levels in excess of 85 decibels for a period of eighteen years. The court found that knowledge within the industry meant that the business should have been aware of the Code of Practice relating to noise levels from 1972 and should have taken measures to provide adequate protection from 1974 at the latest. The court considered knowledge at the time and allowed a period for the company to react to the Code of Practice. In reaching their decision the Court made clear that the Company could only defend the claim if it was not reasonably practicable to reduce or eliminate the risk at the relevant time and in this case adequate ear protection would have solved the problem. As in all cases involving a potential defence of “reasonable practicability” the court considered the necessary measures the Company could have taken – in this case ear protection was easy to provide and cost effective and therefore the Company had no defence.
This ruling of the Court of Appeal may have wider reaching effects for industry as it could easily be applied to other areas where the provision of simple work equipment protects employees. The ruling also widens the possibility of those in industry facing claims for exposure to low levels of noise. For business owners the case also opens up the possibility of claims for industrial injury dating back further than was previously thought possible.
The copyright in this article belongs to Lupton Fawcett LLP
There is currently nothing under Barristers.
John Gaunt

Michelle Render

Elena Kostadinova
Paul Davison

Stewart McLean

Jonathan M

Dan Hirst

Natalia Breeva

Tim Cottier

Robert Bellhouse

Margaret Ferris

Andrew Ward

Graham Manley

Jessica Hall

James Love

Rob Whitehead

Kevin Moynihan

Jeff Matthews

Dan Stoica

Steven Hubbard
