Platinum Salts Sensitisation/Allergy: No Injury as the Court Follows Pleural Plaques - Alan Care, Thomson Snell & Passmore
02/12/14. The medical profession particularly allergists and immunologists may well be surprised by this recent High Court judgment as Jay J has apparently swept aside medical science or at least an appreciation of allergy. Greenway and others v Johnson Matthey PLC [2014] EWHC (QB) 26 11 2014. In this split trial liability was not in issue and breaches of statutory duty - workplace regulations and COSHH were admitted.
As a specialist ID practitioner in “toxic torts” I have been referred claims by AllergyUK for many years. Will this disappointing judgment be applied by our courts to others who have claims and suffer from allergy? Has the court got this wrong?
From the judgment and medical evidence:
“8. If exposure continues after sensitisation has occurred (as demonstrated by positive skin prick test) then most (but not all) individuals thus exposed will develop physical symptoms relating to one or more of the eyes, nose, chest and skin.”
It is somewhat unclear if any of the five claimants had [any?] symptoms of allergy but were definitely sensitised by platinum salts. The court dismissed the five claimant claims in both tort and contract after having developed platinum salts allergies due to their work. The judgment should be read in full. The claims were treated as analogous to pleural plaques - thus no injury-no tort. Provisional damages were sought. The court’s approach reminds me of molecular damage [tubular proteinuria for example] initially caused to individuals who may later develop serious kidney problems due to their work exposure to cadmium. These claims would presumably also now no longer succeed whereas some years ago were settled by insurers.
Are all pre requisite conditions caused by toxic substance exposure such as bio-markers now to be treated as a non injury in the same way as pleural plaques and asbestos disease?
Image ©iStockphoto.com/AlexRaths
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
