Dryden and others v Johnson Matthey Plc [2018]

Dryden and others v Johnson Matthey Plc [2018] UKSC 18 is an important tort case where the Supreme Court addressed whether the claimants, former employees of the defendant, had sustained actionable personal injury as a result of their exposure to platinum salts. the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment affirming that a change in physical capacity for ordinary life, even without immediate physical effects, constitutes a form of personal injury that is recoverable under the law.

The factual background involved former employees who were exposed to platinum salts during their work, resulting in the development of platinum salt sensitisation, a condition causing the immune system to produce IgE antibodies. Although symptomless, this condition carries a significant risk of allergic reactions upon further exposure, requiring the claimants to avoid working with platinum salts. As a result, they experienced financial losses due to job restrictions or termination. The claimants brought a legal action against their employers, seeking compensation for the loss of earnings and earning capacity incurred as a result of their developed sensitivity to platinum.

At first instance and in the Court of Appeal, the claimants' claims were dismissed. The courts held that platinum salt sensitisation did not constitute an actionable personal injury and that their claims were for pure economic loss, which is generally not recoverable in negligence. The Supreme Court, however, unanimously allowed the appeal. Lady Black, delivering the sole judgment, held that negligence and breach of statutory duty require claimants to demonstrate actionable damage, typically in the form of personal injury. The Court emphasised that personal injury includes physical changes impairing a person's health or capacity, even if hidden or symptomless.

The Court concluded that the claimants' condition constituted actionable personal injury because the physiological change, the production of IgE antibodies, rendered them unable to work in environments involving platinum salts. This inability impaired their bodily capacity for work, making them significantly worse off. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd, where pleural plaques from asbestos exposure were held not to amount to personal injury because they posed no future health risks. In contrast, platinum salt sensitisation carries the risk of allergic reactions upon further exposure, directly affecting the claimants' lives and work.

The Court recognised the sensitisation as an actionable injury and rejected the respondent's argument that the claims were solely for pure economic loss. Consequently, the claimants' financial losses flowed from their impaired capacity due to the injury and were recoverable. This decision demonstrates that even symptomless conditions can constitute personal injury if they result in significant impairment to health or capability.