Barker v Corus (UK) plc

Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Tudor crown)

Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] UKHL 20 is a significant case in English tort law, particularly in the area of negligence and causation. The case addressed the issue of apportionment of damages in the context of multiple causes of a disease, specifically mesothelioma, a type of cancer primarily associated with exposure to asbestos.

Background

The claimant, Mr. Barker, had been exposed to asbestos while working as a plasterer for several employers, including Corus (UK) plc. Mesothelioma developed many years after his exposure. The disease is peculiar because it can be caused by exposure to relatively small quantities of asbestos, and it is impossible to determine which exposure was the actual cause of the disease. Before this case, the House of Lords had decided in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd that when it was impossible to determine which of several exposures to asbestos was the actual cause of the disease, all employers who had negligently exposed the employee to asbestos could be held jointly and severally liable.

Judgment

The House of Lords had to consider whether, in cases involving mesothelioma, the liability should be apportioned among the various employers according to their contribution to the risk of developing the disease, or whether each employer should be fully liable. The Lords decided that liability should be apportioned. This meant that each employer would only be liable for their contribution to the risk of the claimant developing mesothelioma. This was a departure from the principle established in Fairchild, where employers could be held fully liable even if they were not the sole cause of the disease.

Significance

The decision in Barker v Corus (UK) plc had significant implications for victims of mesothelioma and their families. It meant that claimants would potentially receive less compensation, as they could only recover a proportion of their damages from each employer, based on that employer's contribution to the risk of developing the disease. This was particularly problematic in cases where some employers were insolvent or could not be traced.

Following the decision, there was considerable public and political concern about its implications for mesothelioma victims. This led to the enactment of the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of the Barker decision for mesothelioma claims. Section 3 of the Act restored the principle of joint and several liability for such claims, ensuring that claimants could recover full compensation from any one of the negligent employers.

Conclusion

Barker v Corus (UK) plc is a landmark case in the law of negligence and causation, highlighting the complexities involved in apportioning liability for diseases caused by multiple exposures to hazardous substances. The case also demonstrates the interplay between the judiciary and the legislature in the development of tort law, particularly in response to societal concerns and the needs of victims of industrial diseases.