Legal implications of pandemic workplace safety

On 28 May 2025, the High Court in the case of Mark Edwards & Ors v 2 Sisters Food Group Limited provided a critical judgement relating to workplace safety amid the Covid-19 pandemic. The case involved four appellants, former employees who contracted Covid-19 while working at a food processing facility in Anglesey, alleging that inadequate safety measures led to the outbreak among staff. The appellants claimed breaches of statutory duty, breach of contract, and negligence on the part of 2 Sisters Food Group Limited as they argued that the factory conditions were conducive to viral transmission. They pointed out that during the early months of the pandemic, when understanding of the virus was limited, the factory failed to implement appropriate safety measures that complied with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.

In contrast, 2 Sisters Food Group acknowledged close working conditions but disputed claims that employees were “shoulder to shoulder.” The company asserted that enhanced hygiene protocols were in place and contended that the closure of the factory stemmed from a mutual decision made with public health officials rather than being mandated outright. Moreover, the company challenged the appellants’ claims regarding causation, arguing that they had not established a direct link between any alleged breaches and their contraction of the virus.

The case was prompted when the respondent sought a summary judgement to dismiss the claims, arguing that under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 24.2, the appellants had no realistic chance of prevailing. Judge HHJ Owens ruled in favour of the respondent, determining that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. A pivotal aspect of the judgement involved the necessity of evidence of causation, particularly in relation to Covid-19, described as an “indivisible injury.” Establishing a direct cause for illness, given the many potential avenues of exposure—be it through the community or the workplace—was highlighted as a challenging task, compounded by the appellants’ failure to present adequate medical causation evidence.

During the appeal, the appellants contended that the judge had erred by not considering the lack of disclosure from the respondent, which hindered their ability to gather essential expert evidence on causation. They argued for the case to be allowed to develop fully at trial, where additional evidence could clarify the issues at stake. Upon review, the appellate court observed that HHJ Owens may have conducted a mini-trial without ample evidence and noted the potential availability of compelling evidence that could bolster the appellants’ claims. This recognition amplified the understanding that the risk of contracting Covid-19 extended beyond the workplace, offering a more nuanced perspective on the legal proceedings.

Ultimately, the appeal was granted, highlighting the intricate legal arguments surrounding Covid-19 and workplace negligence claims. This decision underscores the court's commitment to allowing comprehensive investigations into allegations of workplace negligence, especially within the context of public health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic. The ruling in Mark Edwards & Ors v 2 Sisters Food Group Limited represents a significant development in demonstrating the challenges of establishing causation in claims arising from the pandemic and reinforces the importance of thorough evidence examination in ensuring just and fair adjudication of potential claims.