Barker v Corus UK, [2006] 2 AC 572

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Matthew worked at three different shipyards over a span of twelve years during which he was exposed to asbestos without adequate protective equipment. He also performed his own asbestos removal at home while briefly selfemployed leaving him with combined exposures that medical experts find difficult to separate. Matthew was recently diagnosed with lung cancer but it is impossible to determine with certainty which exposure caused his condition. Two of the former employers remain in business while the third has been dissolved. Matthew is considering legal action to recover damages from each entity that potentially contributed to his illness.


Which of the following best reflects how liability for Matthew's lung cancer is likely to be apportioned under English tort law?

Introduction

The legal principle of causation seeks to establish the link between a defendant's actions and the harm suffered by a claimant. In instances where multiple factors contribute to an injury and medical science cannot pinpoint a specific cause, the traditional "but for" test of causation becomes problematic. The "Fairchild exception," established in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22, addresses this issue by allowing liability where a defendant materially increased the risk of harm. Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572 further refined this concept, specifically in the context of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure. The case examined the apportionment of damages when multiple exposures to asbestos, from varied sources including the claimant’s own actions, were in play. This ruling focused on how liability should be determined when an employer’s negligence increased the risk, but not necessarily the sole cause.

The Facts of Barker v Corus

The factual matrix of Barker v Corus centered around a claimant who had died from mesothelioma. This claimant had been exposed to asbestos during several periods of employment, including a significant period with the defendant employers, along with a short period with another employer, and also during three instances of self-employment. The claimant's estate pursued a claim against the defendant employers based on the principle established in Fairchild. The key point of dispute was whether the defendant employers should be held entirely liable (jointly and severally) for the harm suffered, or only proportionally liable for their contribution to the risk of contracting mesothelioma. The defendant employers argued that they should only be liable in proportion to the risk they had created, since there were multiple exposures. The House of Lords, in a split decision, allowed the appeal and held that damages should be apportioned in accordance to risk contributed by the particular defendants.

The House of Lords Decision and Proportional Liability

Lord Hoffmann, in his leading judgment, addressed several critical points regarding the application of the Fairchild exception. The initial issue regarded the source of the exposures. The Court held that the Fairchild exception applied irrespective of whether the exposure, other than by a defendant, was tortious, non-tortious, by natural causes, human agency, or the claimant himself. The judgment shifted the focus from proving that a specific exposure from a defendant directly caused the mesothelioma to determining whether the defendant had materially increased the risk of the claimant contracting the disease. Lord Hoffmann argued that "the damage that was caused was the creation of risk and chances are infinitely divisible." This led to the concept of proportional liability, which meant that each defendant's damages would be assessed based on the degree of risk they contributed.

The Court concluded that “proportional damages smooth the roughness of the justice which a rule of joint and several liability creates” and that a defendant should not be liable for more than the damage which he caused. This decision departed from the traditional approach of holding each tortfeasor jointly and severally liable, where any one could be held responsible for the entire sum of the damages. Instead, the House of Lords held that assessing damages would involve quantifying the risk contributed by the particular defendant. This approach acknowledged that in mesothelioma cases, the harm is often a result of a combination of multiple risk factors, some of which may not be attributable to the negligence of the defendant.

Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 and Joint and Several Liability

The decision in Barker v Corus was not without its controversy and quickly prompted legislative change. Parliament responded to public concerns over the practicalities of apportioning damages in mesothelioma claims. The result was section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006. This legislation, enacted shortly after Barker v Corus, reinstated the principle of joint and several liability in cases where employees develop mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in the workplace. The core purpose of the Act was to ensure that claimants, in cases where several employers might be dissolved or untraceable, would not be unfairly penalized by an inability to receive full compensation. The Act effectively overrode the proportional damages approach set out in Barker v Corus specifically for mesothelioma claims. The change was made to provide a safety net for claimants who might otherwise not be able to secure their due compensation.

The Continued Relevance of Barker v Corus

Despite being partially overruled by the Compensation Act 2006, Barker v Corus maintains relevance in cases concerning asbestos-related diseases outside mesothelioma. Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks [2016] EWCA Civ 86 affirmed that the proportional apportionment of damages according to risk, established in Barker, continues to apply to diseases caused by asbestos exposure other than mesothelioma. In the Heneghan case, the claimant’s father had died from lung cancer. The medical evidence could not establish which exposure out of the multiple defendant employers, had actually caused the cancer. The Court of Appeal upheld that the Fairchild exception applied to lung cancer claims that were not mesothelioma. The Court of Appeal also reiterated that the “material contribution test” used in cases of divisible injury was not appropriate in cases of indivisible injuries such as cancer. The Heneghan ruling reinforced the position that even though lung cancer is considered an indivisible injury, the risk of lung cancer is divisible. As such, damages should be apportioned based on the proportional risk contribution of each defendant. This application demonstrated the continuing importance of the Barker principle for certain cases, which are not covered by the legislative override of the Compensation Act 2006.

Applying Proportional Liability: An Example

To better understand the application of proportional liability following Barker v Corus and where the Compensation Act does not apply, consider a hypothetical case. An individual develops lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos, not mesothelioma, during two separate periods of employment. Employer A exposed the individual to asbestos for a longer period and in higher concentrations. Employer B exposed the individual for a shorter duration and with lower levels of asbestos. Under the Barker ruling (and as applied in Heneghan), rather than holding either Employer A or B liable for the entire sum of the damages, the damages would be allocated based on their relative contributions to the risk of contracting lung cancer. If it were determined that Employer A created 75% of the risk and Employer B 25%, each would be liable for only those portions of the overall damages. This example illustrates how the concept of proportional liability works to adjust the damages according to the actual risk exposure each defendant contributed to, in cases of indivisible injury.

Conclusion

Barker v Corus UK Ltd significantly altered the approach to causation and damages in cases where multiple exposures could have contributed to a claimant's injury. The decision introduced the idea that where the Fairchild exception applies, damages should be apportioned according to the defendant's contribution to risk. While section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 overturned the proportional liability concept in mesothelioma claims, the core principle of Barker v Corus remains relevant for other asbestos-related diseases. It continues to impact tort law by reinforcing the importance of considering the extent of risk each defendant's actions created when establishing liability. Cases such as Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks demonstrate the ongoing application of the principle established in Barker v Corus where joint and several liability doesn't apply due to the Compensation Act 2006 and the type of injury is not mesothelioma. Barker v Corus and its ongoing influence provides a detailed illustration of the complexities in the application of tort law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal