Prepare me an argument representing the applicant, and include different cases to support arguement alongside with counter arguments.

Richard Maddox(Applicant) v Cowley Coalmines UK Ltd(Respondent)

Supreme Court

October 2023

Cowley Coalmines UK Ltd (CC-UK) is a medium sized company that mines and supplies coal to both commercial and domestic customers. The company employs 12 people, four of whom are involved in the actual mining activity. Richard Maddox is one of the four.

Richard Maddox was an employee of CC-UK for 11 years before his retirement. He retired three years ago and is now 70 years of age. He was employed as a coal miner all his working life and, including CC-UK, worked for 3 other coal mines for approximately equal periods of time. Mr Maddox has been diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and medical experts agree that, on balance, the cause was the continued inhalation of coal mine dust throughout his working life.

Long term exposure to coal mine dust has been known to cause COPD - In addition, research over the past 20 years has shown that many, perhaps all, dusts previously considered inert can produce COPD or other chronic lung conditions from long-term exposures.

CC-UK accept that they owe a duty of care to Mr Maddox but deny liability on the following grounds:

1. They did not breach their duty to Mr Maddox as the risk was negligible. They had therefore acted reasonably in ignoring it.
2. That even if there was a breach, then it was impossible to identify which employer caused the COPD disease.
3. If there was a breach and CC-UK had caused the damage, that damage was too remote.

In the High Court, Hiscox J held:

1. The risk was small, and CC-UK had acted reasonably in ignoring it (Wagon Mound no.2distinguished,Bolton v Stone applied) - RESPONDENT
2. On the balance of probabilities, it is not possible to identify which employer caused the damage (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd distinguished)
3. The damage was too remote (Wagon Mound no.1 applied; Smith v Leech Brain distinguished) -RESPONDENT

In the Court of Appeal, Stanton, Collins and Sawyer LJJ unanimously upheld the decisions of Hiscox J on points 1 and 3. On point two Stanton and Collins LJJ upheld the decision with Sawyer LJ dissenting on the ground that the ambit of the House of Lords decision in Fairchild could encompass the instant facts.

The case now comes before the Supreme Court (Lady Dale, Lady Joyce, Lord Winston, Lord Paul and Lord Charles). The appellant is Mr Maddox, the respondent CC-UK Ltd.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

1. Students may choose to either represent the appellant or to represent the respondent. Students should only choose one of the above points to argue - that is either point 1 or point 2 or point 3. Students must clearly state at the beginning of their presentation which party they act for, and which point they are arguing.

1. Whilst you should focus on your argument this does not mean you ignore the counterarguments. In your presentation you should engage with the counterarguments to attempt to knock down the counterarguments.

1. Identify the area of law you should focus on - negligence. Identify the particular areas of negligence that you should focus on.

1. Read relevant journal articles so that you can understand the complexity of the points to be argued.

1. When citing cases give the full case citation the first time you mention the case.

1. If referring to a particular part of a judgment cite the relevant paragraph.