Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had been employed for a number of years in a role which had involved regular exposure to asbestos. He developed diffuse pleural thickening and issued proceedings seeking compensation. As the employing companies had not had insurance, he issued proceedings against the defendant parent company. The county court judge found, on the evidence, that the defendant had owed the claimant a duty of care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The basis upon which the judge had found a duty of care stemming from the defendant's appointment of a director to the employing company had been unsustainable. Further, the limited evidence available had fallen far short of that required to establish such a duty.