Posted By John Murgatroyd Swings and roundabouts, as usual. The drc seems to be missing the point.... "The Claimant, Mr. Coxall, developed occupational asthma caused by the irritant effects of a new paint product, which had been brought into use shortly after he began his job. He consulted the works doctor and a memo was written to his manager expressing the doctor's opinion that he, "should not work with the new paint which has just been introduced." Unfortunately the memo did not come to the attention of his line manager and he continued to do the work for a few more weeks until he went off sick. The manager and the health and safety manager both accepted in evidence that if the doctor's memo had come to their attention they would have removed the Claimant from the work. The Trial Judge found that the Defendants had taken all appropriate precautions to ensure the safety of the work, both under the COSHH Regulations and at common law, but nevertheless the Claimant had developed occupational asthma because of an unknown constitutional predisposition. The Judge expressly found that the Claimant was aware of the doctor's advice and chose to continue to work because he needed the money. He also found, based on subsequent events, that if the Claimant had been offered a transfer to other work he would not have accepted it. But he went on to find that in the circumstances the Defendants were under a duty to take the Claimant off the work and as a last resort dismiss him, and their failure to do either was negligent entitling the Claimant to damages for the exacerbation of his condition brought about by his additional exposure. The Defendants appealed on the sole ground that their common law duty to the Claimant did not extend to moving him from safe work, still less dismissing him, because he was unsuited to the work which was otherwise safe. Withers and subsequent cases were relied upon. Given the evidence of the Defendants' managers the Court was able to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the Defendants' negligence in failing to follow their own doctor's advice which, had they received and followed it, would at least have led to the Claimant being removed from the work, and on the basis that the Defendants ought to have discussed with the Claimant all available options in the light of the doctor's advice and because they did not do so he was not willing to say that the Judge was wrong "