The basic narrative in both cases is similar. In Chandler, the claimant in question had been a bricklayer for around 18 months, had been exposed to asbestos and, consequently, suffered from asbestosis. This was a clear breach of the subsidiary’s duty of care to the claimant. But the subsidiary had long since been wound up. The claimant therefore sought to establish that the parent company owed him a direct duty of care.4 In Thompson, the claimant handled significant amounts of asbestos during his nine-year employment as a labourer with two subsidiaries in the same group. As a result he had suffered from an acute respiratory condition, together with an increased risk of mesothelioma and cancer. He, too, sought to establish that the parent company owed him a direct duty of care because the subsidiaries were not worth “powder and shot” and had deficient insurance coverage.5

In Chander, Arden LJ considered there to be a duty of care on the parent company with respect to the health and safety of its subsidiary’s employees. In this regard, her Ladyship summarised four relevant indicia.6 First, the parent and subsidiary’s businesses were the same. Secondly, the parent had, or ought to have had, “superior knowledge” on relevant health and safety issues in the industry. Thirdly, the parent knew, or ought to have known, that the employees of the subsidiary were working in “unsafe” conditions. Fourthly, and finally, the parent knew, or ought to have known, that the subsidiary and its employees