Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 86

Facts

• Mr. Heneghan worked as a dock labourer between 1954 and 1991, during which he was exposed to asbestos by multiple employers, including Manchester Dry Docks.
• He developed lung cancer and sought compensation, arguing that his asbestos exposure materially increased his risk of the disease.
• The defendants, including Manchester Dry Docks, contested liability, citing the claimant’s history of smoking as a competing contributing factor.
• At first instance, the trial judge found each employer liable under the Fairchild principle, as they had materially increased Heneghan’s risk of lung cancer.
• The defendants appealed, submitting that the Fairchild principle should not apply to lung cancer cases due to their multifactorial nature.

Issues

1. Whether the Fairchild principle, traditionally applied to mesothelioma claims, could also apply to cases of lung cancer arising from asbestos exposure.
2. Whether the material increase in risk from workplace asbestos exposure established causation despite the presence of other significant risk factors, such as smoking.
3. Whether the defendants could avoid liability in multi-employer exposure scenarios where scientific evidence could not attribute disease to a specific employer.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, extending the Fairchild principle to lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure.
• The court held that the rationale behind the Fairchild principle—addressing scientific uncertainty and ensuring fair compensation—was equally applicable to lung cancer as to mesothelioma.
• The presence of alternative risk factors, such as smoking, did not preclude the application of the principle; liability attached where employers materially increased the risk of harm.
• The judgment clarified that the Fairchild principle is not limited to single-cause diseases and may apply where asbestos exposure significantly increased the risk, even amidst other contributors.

Legal Principles

• The Fairchild principle establishes that, in cases of scientific uncertainty regarding causation, liability may be imposed on all defendants who have materially increased the risk of the claimant’s harm.
• The principle, previously confined primarily to mesothelioma, was affirmed by this decision to also extend to lung cancer where asbestos exposure is a significant risk factor.
• The Compensation Act 2006 codified aspects of the Fairchild approach, affirming that liability may be established despite inability to prove specific causation due to evidentiary limits.
• Liability under the Fairchild principle is not excluded by the existence of other potential causes (e.g., smoking), provided the defendant’s conduct made a material contribution to the risk.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 86 confirmed that the Fairchild principle applies to asbestos-related lung cancer claims, allowing claimants to recover damages where defendants materially increased the risk, regardless of additional risk factors such as smoking. This judgment broadened the path for recovery in complex occupational disease cases.