Barker v Corus UK plc [2006] UKHL 20 – Law Journals

Causation: The sum of the parts

Matthew White weighs up the ‘but for’ test and material contribution in cumulative cause cases ‘The “material contribution” approach applies just as much to multiple factor cases as to single agency cases.’ An article in this publication in 2013 (‘Breach of duty and causation, where are we now?’ by Christopher Sharp QC and Matthew White, …

Continue reading "Causation: The sum of the parts"

This post is only available to members.

Mesothelioma: Rex, asbestos and the de minimis rule

John McDonald discusses what is meant by a material increase in risk after exposure to asbestos ‘The issue of what is de minimis is a question of fact for determination by the trial judge, rather than purely a matter of medical evidence.’Many of you will know the limerick which goes as follows: There was a …

Continue reading "Mesothelioma: Rex, asbestos and the de minimis rule"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Professor Carl Heneghan (administrator of the estate of James Leo Heneghan) v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Ors EWHC 4190 (QB)

Causation; multi-defendants; asbestos ‘The judge did not accept that a period of exposure that does not increase the risk by more than double can be said to have materially contributed to the cancer.’The High Court ruled on the principles of causation to be applied to a multi-defendant case of asbestos-induced lung cancer. Mr Justice Jay …

Continue reading "Case Report: Professor Carl Heneghan (administrator of the estate of James Leo Heneghan) v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Ors EWHC 4190 (QB)"

This post is only available to members.

Fairchild Rules: Fair enough?

Patrick Limb QC examines the decision in the appeal case of IEG v Zurich ‘The relaxation of the causal requirement in mesothelioma claims emerged from the conjoined appeals in Fairchild precisely because the insurers were hoping that such claims would founder on the rock of uncertainty created by the inability to satisfy the “but for” …

Continue reading "Fairchild Rules: Fair enough?"

This post is only available to members.

Occupational Disease: Extent of insurance cover for mesothelioma claims

Anna Macey discusses the decision in International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK Ltd The relationship between an insurer and an insured is contractual, and the premium reflects the risk the insurer is prepared to take and the price they are prepared to accept for it.In this interesting case the Court of Appeal …

Continue reading "Occupational Disease: Extent of insurance cover for mesothelioma claims"

This post is only available to members.

Industrial disease: Divisible and indivisible injuries

D C

Tim Trotman reviews the tests for factual causation following Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd ‘The tests can be encapsulated in familiar phrases: “but for”, “material contribution”, “material increase in risk” and “apportionment”, but discriminating factual cases and matching them to the correct legal test has become far more difficult in the recent past.’ This article …

Continue reading "Industrial disease: Divisible and indivisible injuries"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10

Asbestos; causation; applying Fairchild; single exposure; s3 Compensation Act 2006 ‘The rule in Fairchild applies to single exposure cases of mesothelioma just as it does in multi-exposure cases. In this way, the decision has dealt a very significant blow to the position of defendants in mesothelioma cases.’In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] the …

Continue reading "Case Report: Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10"

This post is only available to members.