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

Facts

  • The case involved a deceased individual who developed mesothelioma after asbestos exposure at a steel drum factory during employment with Greif (UK) Ltd.
  • The claimant’s exposure to asbestos came from two sources: general (environmental, non-negligent) and occupational (negligent) exposure, with the employer’s negligence increasing total exposure by 18%.
  • The Court of Appeal found Greif (UK) Ltd liable on the basis the negligent exposure materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, applying the Fairchild exception and s. 3 of the Compensation Act 2006.
  • Greif (UK) Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing the applicability of the Fairchild exception in single-defendant cases and the sufficiency of an 18% increase in risk.

Issues

  1. Whether s. 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 mandates the application of the Fairchild exception in all mesothelioma cases.
  2. Whether a “doubles the risk” test is required to establish liability for a single negligent source of exposure.
  3. What constitutes a “material increase in risk” under the Fairchild exception and whether an 18% increase meets this threshold.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court dismissed Greif (UK) Ltd’s appeal.
  • It held that s. 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 does not mandate the Fairchild exception but recognises its existence in common law when a responsible person has materially increased the risk.
  • The Court rejected the ‘doubles the risk’ test, stating that epidemiological evidence supporting it is unreliable and that risk is not necessarily proportional to exposure.
  • The Court determined that a “material increase in risk” need not be substantial, only not so insignificant as to be disregarded under the de minimis principle.
  • The 18% increase in risk was found neither statistically insignificant nor de minimis; liability was thus established.

Legal Principles

  • The Fairchild exception applies where a defendant’s negligence has materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, including cases with a single defendant.
  • Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 acknowledges, but does not impose, the Fairchild exception.
  • The ‘doubles the risk’ test is not a legal requirement in mesothelioma claims, and statistical evidence is not determinative of liability.
  • A “material increase in risk” is judged by whether the risk increase is not de minimis; there is no stringent quantitative requirement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that the Fairchild exception permits liability for materially increasing the risk of mesothelioma, applying even to single-defendant cases with modest risk increases, and that neither a “doubles the risk” threshold nor statutory compulsion under s. 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 is required for liability.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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