Goldscheider v Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation
 EWHC 687 (QB);  EWCA Civ 711
A Brief Summary
The claimant was a viola player employed by the defendant in the orchestra of the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. In September 2012, he was taking part in rehearsals for a production of Wagner’s Ring Cycle. The seating in the orchestra pit had been rearranged so that the entire brass section was collected together immediately behind the claimant’s position. The orchestra pit was cramped. There was little room between the musicians. During the rehearsal, concerns were raised by various orchestra members about the noise levels. As a result, various members of the orchestra (including the claimant) were fitted with dosimeters (personal noise meters). When the dosimeter readings were later reviewed they showed that a number of the musicians (including the claimant) had been exposed to noise levels well in excess of the exposure action values (“EAVs”) prescribed by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.
During the course of the rehearsal, the claimant (who had personal hearing protectors with him) developed symptoms of what was subsequently diagnosed as “acoustic shock injury”. As a result of the severity of his symptoms, he was unable to continue playing and was subsequently medically discharged from the orchestra. He has been unable to pursue his career and principal pastime of playing music. He claimed damages from the defendant for breach of the 2005 Regulations. The defendant denied breach of duty and causation of any injury. The defendant relied upon expert medical evidence that the alleged acoustic shock injury was in fact Meniere’s disease (a medical condition unrelated to noise) which had coincidentally become symptomatic during the rehearsal.
In view of the date of injury, this was a claim which was unaffected by the amendments to s.47 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 made by s.69 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The claimant alleged that the defendant was in clear breach of the duties imposed by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. The defendant argued that most of those duties under the Regulations are limited to what is reasonably practicable and it was not reasonably practicable to have complied with duties which interfered with musical excellence and artistic integrity. In any event, the defendant had investigated various methods of noise reduction each of which were for one reason or another unworkable. The only effective solution was the one adopted, namely to provide each musician with a range of personal hearing protectors (ear plugs and muffs) which the musician could use as and when he or she felt was necessary. The defendant also argued that requiring it to comply strictly with the 2005 Regulations would prevent or deter the desirable activity of professional orchestra playing and that was a result which s.1 Compensation Act 2006 required the court to avoid.
The issues of breach of duty and causation of injury were tried as preliminary issues by Nicola Davies J. The trial took 8 days, including a site view of the Royal Opera House.
In a reserved judgment following an 8 day trial, the judge found in favour of the claimant for the following reasons.
The purpose of the 2005 Regulations is stated in reg 3(1) as “protecting persons against a risk to their health and safety arising from exposure to noise at work.” By reg 2(1), “noise” means any audible sound. The risk to which the Regulations relate are not limited to the more usual risks arising out of noise exposure at work (such as NIHL arising from ongoing long term daily exposure to excessive noise, or the pathological damage inflicted by extreme noise levels) but can include risk of rarer types of noise induced injury, such as acoustic shock injury. Provided that some form of noise induced personal injury was foreseeable, then the 2005 Regulations were engaged even though the claimant’s particular injury may not have been foreseeable – Page v Smith  1 AC 155 (HL) applied. It was foreseeable that exposure to the levels recorded by the dosimeter gave rise to a risk of personal injury. Therefore the Regulations applied.
The defendant’s contention that artistic integrity dictated the limits of what was reasonably practicable was rejected.
“However laudable the aim to maintain the highest artistic standards it cannot compromise the standard of care which the ROH as an employer has to protect the health and safety of its employees when at their workplace”
Reg 5 imposed detailed requirements for an assessment of noise related risks. A number of those requirements had not been complied with. Contrary to reg 5(3)(a) the defendant’s risk assessment had not included specific consideration of the level, type and duration of exposure including peak sound pressures. Contrary to reg 5(4) the risk assessment had not been reviewed when the new orchestra layout had been adopted. Therefore the duty was breached.
Reg 6(1) required the defendant to eliminate risk from noise exposure if reasonably practicable to do so or, if not reasonably practicable, to reduce that risk as far as reasonably practicable. The duty was to eliminate/reduce the risk “at source”. The burden of proof of reasonable practicability rested on the defendant -- Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd  UKSC 17,  1 WLR 1003. An obvious means of reducing the risk “at source” was to direct the orchestra to play quieter in rehearsals. Another was not to have positioned all the brass together so close to the claimant. If the defendant had given proper consideration to the noise risks and its duty to avoid them, then it would have measured the noise levels and realised the risks and acted to prevent them as required by the Regulations, but it did not. There was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore the duty was breached.
Reg 6(2) was engaged because the claimant’s exposure had exceeded the upper EAV. Therefore the defendant was required to reduce the claimant’s exposure to as low as reasonably practicable by appropriate means other than personal hearing protectors. As the only method which the defendant adopted to reduce noise exposure was the provision of personal hearing protectors, the defendant was in breach.
Reg 7(3) required the orchestra pit to be demarcated as a hearing protection zone where the wearing of personal hearing protectors was compulsory because the noise levels in the pit regularly exceeded the upper EAV. The duty under reg 7(3) was strict and not limited by reasonable practicability. The defendant had not complied and was in breach.
Reg 9 required the employer to perform health surveillance. There was however no duty to release the results in breach of the employee’s confidentiality. The defendant did perform some health surveillance of the claimant. It was not in breach of the duty under reg 9.
Reg 10 required the defendant to provide the claimant with instruction and training regarding the risks to which he was exposed. The failure to have instructed the claimant to wear personal hearing protectors in the orchestra pit was a breach of duty which in turn led to the breach of reg 6.
The defendant’s reliance on s. 1 Compensation Act 2006 provided it with no assistance. It could not excuse the clear breaches of duty.
On the facts, the Claimant had suffered acoustic shock injury. Such an injury was not limited to those, such as telephone operators who wore headsets. On the balance of probabilities, the cause of the injury had been the excessive level of noise to which the claimant had been exposed at the time of the onset of the symptoms of his injury.
The claimant was awarded Judgment for damages to be assessed.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Association of British Orchestras, the Society of London Theatre and the UK Theatre Association were jointly permitted to be heard as interveners.
The appeal was heard by Sir Brian Leveson (President of the Queen’s Bench Division), McCombe and Bean LJJ and took 2 days. On 17 April 2019, in a reserved judgment, the court dismissed the appeal for the following reasons, which included overruling the trial judge in the defendant’s favour on certain points.
Reg 6(1) & (2): The duties under reg 6 and those under reg 7 are free standing. Reg 7 concerns use of personal hearing protectors, whereas reg 6(2) concerns reducing noise exposure by means other than personal hearing protectors. Therefore, the provision and use of personal hearing protectors is not relevant to whether the duties under reg 6 have been complied with. The burden of proof is on the defendant, as employer, to prove that it had not been reasonably practicable to reduce the claimant’s exposure to noise and the resulting risks. The judge was correct to find that the defendant had not done so. “The most damning single piece of evidence” was the marked reduction in exposure levels measured after the orchestra had been further rearranged (in order to increase the space in front of the brass) after the claimant was injured. If it was reasonably practicable for noise levels to be lower after the claimant was injured, then it was difficult to see that it had not been reasonably practicable before. There was insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s suggestion that the reason why the later rehearsal‘s sound levels were lower was because the later rehearsal had involved less playing and also involved quieter passages than the earlier rehearsal. There was also no evidence in support of the contention that compliance with the Regulations was not reasonably practicable because it would mean loud compositions (such as many of Wagner’s) could no longer be performed without artistic compromise. This lack of evidence also undermined the defendant’s case on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 and the assertions made by the interveners. The defendant was in breach of both regs 6(1) and 6(2).
Reg 7(3): The sound levels in the orchestra pit exceeded the upper exposure action value of 85 dB(A) Lepd. Therefore, reg 7(3)(a) & (b) required that the pit be designated as a hearing protection zone. However the duty to ensure no employee enters such a zone without wearing personal hearing protectors, is subject to reasonable practicability and it had not been reasonably practicable to require the musicians to wear personal hearing protectors at all times when in the pit because to do so impeded the quality of their performance. Consequently there had been no breach of reg 7(3) and there was no need for the claimant to be informed (pursuant to reg 10) of a need to wear personal hearing protectors at all times when in the pit.
Reg 5: The judge was correct to find that the defendant was in breach of the duty (under reg 5) to carry out a risk assessment which included consideration of specified matters, such as peak sound levels. However the breach was academic because a causative breach of reg 6 had been established.
As some form of noise induced injury was reasonably foreseeable, it mattered not that the claimant’s particular noise induced injury may not have been: Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC 837 and Page v Smith  1 AC 155 applied
With regards causation, once an injured employee proves that, as a result of the employer’s breach of duty, the employee was exposed to noise likely to injure him and that he had sustained a noise induced injury, then causation is established unless the employer proves that the injury was not caused by the breach: Ghaith v Indesit Company UK Ltd  EWCA Civ 642 applied, West Sussex County Council v Fuller  EWCA Civ 189 considered and Clough v First Choice Holidays  EWCA Civ 15 distinguished.
Causation was established. Another viola player who was positioned close to the claimant during the rehearsal suffered the onset of similar symptoms claimant which receded when the orchestra was, after the claimant’s injury, further re-arranged so as to increase the distance from the trumpets. This showed not only that it had been reasonably practicable to achieve lower noise levels claimant’s but also that the symptoms suffered by the claimant and the other viola player were as a result of exposure to the sound levels.
As to the dispute regarding the correct diagnosis of the claimant’s condition, “... in the end, it is not the label that matters but rather the connection of the undisputed symptoms with breach of the regulations, arising from the sounds to which the respondent was exposed”.
The interveners’ submission that the court’s application of the Regulations would curtail not only the defendant’s repertoire, but also “all music making in the UK – concerts, theatres, schools, the lot” was a “cataclysmic scenario” that did not represent a proper understanding of the consequences of the decision in this case.
The defendant is seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal treated 85 dB(A) Lepd (the upper exposure action value) as the level above which “risk” arises.
Both courts proceeded on the basis that the employer’s duty to enforce the wearing of personal hearing protectors is imposed by reg 7(3). Neither court referred to reg 8(1)(a).
The Court of Appeal accepted the defendant’s (and interveners’) contention that reasonable practicability includes artistic concerns. It did not consider whether this accorded with the European Noise at Work Directive, 2003/10/EC which the 2005 Regulations implement.
The Hon Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE
Court of Appeal Judges:
Sir Brian Leveson (President of the Queen’s Bench Division)
Theo Huckle QC, Jonathan Clarke for the claimant
David Platt QC, Alexander Macpherson for the defendant
Patrick Limb QC, Kam Jaspal for the interveners
Fry Law for the claimant
BLM Law for the defendant
Weightmans for the interveners
Andrew Parker for the claimant
Philip Jones for the defendant
Acoustic engineering expert:
Kevin Worthington for the defendant
To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.