Landmark case on symptomless physiological injury


In a positive development, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2018 that three former employees of chemicals company Johnson Matthey, who worked in factories making catalytic converters, could claim compensation for symptomless physiological injury which caused them financial loss. 


In Dryden and others (Appellants) v Johnson Matthey Plc (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 18, the three men argued they had developed sensitivity to platinum salts as a result of Johnson Matthey’s failure to keep their workplaces clean. They said this had caused them “actionable” injury. The term “actionable” means a claimant can make a compensation claim.


Solicitors Leigh Day represented the men and explained the ruling “means that if an employer has been negligent and that negligence causes a physiological change in the body, and that change results in economic loss, an employee may be able to claim compensation, even though the physiological change is symptomless”.


While platinum salt sensitivity is itself symptomless, further exposure to the salts is likely to lead to an allergic reaction involving pain and irritation to the eyes, nose, chest and skin. The workers in this case had not yet developed these symptoms, as the company removed them from areas where they would come into contact with the salts. But as platinum salts were an essential part of the work they did, they lost their highly-skilled jobs. They either had to take up a different role on less pay or had their employment terminated. 


Leigh Day industrial disease partner Haminder Bains said others who had been affected may also submit claims. “This landmark judgement is a clear warning to all employers that they cannot side-step their health and safety responsibilities to their employees and must not cut corners and expose other workers to hazardous working conditions,” she said.