Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc [2018] UKSC 18

KEY POINTS

• Personal injury has traditionally been defined as a physical change that significantly worsens the claimant's "health or capability" and encompasses an injury that affects a person's "physical ability to enjoy life."
• The definition of personal injury was expanded to include cases where a claimant suffers psychiatric or physiological harm, even in the absence of accompanying physical harm.
• The claimants have experienced a reduction in their ability to work, resulting in a loss of bodily function due to the physiological changes caused by the negligence of the company. This loss of bodily function qualifies as an actionable personal injury that can be legally pursued as a result of the company's actions.

FACTS

• Appellants were employed by respondent Johnson Matthey Plc, a company involved in the production of catalytic converters. During their employment, the company neglected its obligations under health and safety regulations and common law by failing to maintain proper cleanliness in the factories.
• As a consequence, the claimants were exposed to platinum salts, resulting in the development of platinum salt sensitisation. Once the claimants' platinum salt sensitisation was identified through routine screening, the company prohibited them from working in areas where they could be exposed to platinum salts and experience allergic symptoms.
• One of the claimants accepted a different position within the company but alleges that his pay rate significantly decreased. The other two claimants had their employment terminated.
• Consequently, each claimant argues that their financial situation has been negatively impacted due to their sensitisation, as they are unable to work in any environment, whether with Johnson Matthey or any other employer, where further exposure to platinum salts may occur.
• The central issue is whether the appellants have suffered actionable personal injury on which they can find claims for negligence/breach of statutory duty.

COMMENTARY

• This case reflects a progressive approach in recognizing the impact of psychological harm caused by negligence.