CLICK to return to story index Rio Tinto bid to scratch out ex-Rossing worker's claim
GREG DROPKIN
RIO Tinto's opening arguments to strike out Eddie Connelly's cancer compensation claim were put before Judge Michael Wright at the High Court in London on Tuesday afternoon.
Michael Spencer QC dissected the claim and explained that even if all the allegations, which the company vigorously deny, could be proven - Connelly has shown no reason why Rio Tinto should be held legally responsible. The parent company did not owe any "duty of care" to employees of their subsidiary Rossing Uranium, he argued.
Connelly worked at Rossing from 1977-82. He was diagnosed with throat cancer in 1986 and later had to have his voice box surgically removed. He blames his illness on alleged poor health and safety conditions at the mine.
Connelly maintains that Rio Tinto, Rio Tinto Overseas Services, and Rio Tinto London were duty bound to "take any and all reasonable steps necessary to prevent and-or minimise any hazards to health and-or safety caused by working in the mine and-or to ensure that any and all such steps were taken."
But even a 100 per cent shareholder does not owe a duty of care to persons injured through wrongdoing by the company in which he holds shares, Spencer reminded the Court. Connelly's counsel Brian Leveson QC agreed with this point.
Spencer said it was irrelevant whether the London companies had helped formulate policies on ensuring safety or increasing production and reducing costs at the mine.
"It makes no difference who devised the policies, nor whether they were good or bad," he declared in a written outline of the case, because it is Rossing Uranium Limited (RUL), not Rio Tinto, who is "responsible to the Plaintiff if he is injured by exposure to excess ore dust".
Individuals could also be called to account, but Connelly had not sued them or Rossing itself.
Although Ronnie Walker was Chief Executive and Chairman of Rossing while employed by Rio Tinto London's predecessor RTZ Services, if he had a duty of care to Connelly it was only in his role with RUL, Spencer argued.
Rossing was an independently managed company, he pointed out.
Rio Tinto's counsel derided an affidavit from Connelly's solicitor Richard Meeran, showing the network of RTZ companies and directors which controlled Rossing in the 1970s and the international price-fixing cartel in which they participated, terming it "a history of conspiracy".
If RUL or any of the defendants had a duty of care, their motive in breaching it would be irrelevant, Spencer explained.
Spencer also touched on a second reason to stop the case, telling the Court that it had the power "to prevent misuse of its procedure".
Rio Tinto contend that there is no evidence which Connelly could conceivably use to prove that his laryngeal cancer was caused by radiation exposure at Rossing. His case was bound to fail and should be struck out now. Continuing it would be an "abuse of the process," Spencer told the court.
Judge Wright referred to affidavits from surgeons GL Picozzi and DR Mendonca who say there is likely to be a causal association between the engineer's radiation exposure and his throat cancer. Spencer insisted that nothwithstanding this, Rio Tinto contend the case is bound to fail.
He complained it was highly prejudicial to the defendants to put them to the considerable expense of defending a claim of this magnitude and complexity, given the weakness of the case. The hearing continues.
Also:
Case gets underway in legal fog
November 19, 1998
CLICK to return to story index