Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. He also said that “considerable restraint is called for in any relaxation of the threshold ‘but for’ test of causal connection”, that “Policy questions will loom large” and that it was “impossible to be more specific”. Three separate claimants contracted lung cancer (malignant mesothelioma) as a result of their exposure to asbestos during their various courses of employment with varying employers. Thirdly, it is established that the greater the exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of contracting that disease. The principle is a radical exception to the normal ‘but for’ rule and ought to be restricted. (3) D’s conduct must have been capable of causing P’s injury. 2020. If you have purchased a print title that contains an access code, please see the information provided with the code or instructions printed within the title for information about how to register your code. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 Toggle Table of Contents Table of Contents. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Ctrl + Alt + T to open/close. He worked for two consecutive employers where he was exposed to asbestos in his work. NOTE: You must connect to Westlaw Next before accessing this resource. It is submitted that the trial judge was wrong to apply the principle outlined in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 to an occupational stress case. Test yourself: Multiple choice questions with instant feedback. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. ... Lord Hoffman revisited the issue in Tomlinson v Congleton B.C. 2. and terms. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:03 by the Facts. 43 At 4. HL held that in such a case (i.e. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 42 As interpreted by the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd[2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32 and Barker v Corus UK Ltd[2006] UKHL 20, [2006] AC 572. Citations: [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32; [2002] 3 WLR 89; [2002] 3 All ER 305; [2002] ICR 798; [2002] IRLR 533; [2002] PIQR P28. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Despite the exceptional nature of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]?1 AC 32, its formulaic application in low exposure mesothelioma cases has ramifications for the coherence and scope of causal responsibility for harm in the English law of negligence. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). Lord Bingham: this type of modification is necessary where the injury is caused by slow build up and not one sudden infliction. There are policy arguments either way for the principle of the “increase the material risk of harm”. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Lord Hoffman: There are 5 features that justify an exception to the general rule on “balance of proof”: “First, we are dealing with a duty specifically intended to protect employees against being unnecessarily exposed to the risk of (among other things) a particular disease. The claimants had worked for several employers and were exposed to asbestos in each … ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. Against it are: (1) an employer for only a short period of time might be punished; (2) an employer who didn’t cause the harm might be made liable. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2003] 1 AC 32. Although the employees in Fairchild were accepted to have been the victims of a complete tort on the balance of probability (i.e. Where good policy reasons exist, the court can depart from the “balance of probabilities” rule. [2004] 1 AC 46. Both employers breached their duty of care for him by exposing him to asbestos, but it cannot be determined which breach actually led to the poisoning, or if they both did. The claimant appeals with the permission of the judge and says that the judge should have held that Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Law Trove for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). students are currently browsing our notes. fairchild (suing on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of and dependants of arthur eric fairchild (deceased)) (appellant) v glenhaven funeral services limited and others (respondents) fox (suing as widow and administratrix of thomas fox (deceased)) (fc) (appellant) v spousal (midlands) limited (respondents) matthews (fc) (appellant) v Facts. It is more unfair that a victim should not be compensated than that a hunter who didn’t cause the harm should be punished (since he is doing something inherently fault-worthy). Fairchild's husband developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos poisoning. privacy policy. The document also included … Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our The claimants were either the former employees of the defendants or, where the employees themselves had died, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. Fourthly, except in the case in which there has been only one significant exposure to asbestos, medical science cannot prove whose asbestos is more likely than not to have produced the cell mutation which caused the disease. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 (HL) Pages 40-44 and 64-68. All rights reserved. (2) D materially increased probability of P being harmed. Case: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32.) 8 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Homes [2003] 1 AC 32 9 The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] AC 388 10 [2005] UKHL 2 . The House of Lords denied that the claimant had suffered a compensatable injury in this case. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. INTRODUCTION The facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd1 are well known. Type Legal Case Document Date 2003 Volume 1 Page start 32 Web address Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Pendleton v Stone & Webster Engineering Ltd House of Lords. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22. Jack Kinsella. It was modified by statutory intervention in the form of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3. All Rights Reserved. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. 1 I am most grateful to Charlotte Gilmartin for her very valuable assistance in preparing this talk 2 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 A.C. 32 at [45], per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead 3 Stapleton, Cause in fact and the scope of liability for consequences, L.Q.R. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:03 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. (4) D has to prove that his injury was caused by one kind of event, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. 1 KILLING AND CAUSING DEATH IN ROMAN LAW: DIGEST 9.2.51, FAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICES LTD AND CONTEMPORARY TORT THEORY 1. 2003, 119(Jul), 388 The … Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by Fifthly, the employee has contracted the disease against which he should have been protected.”, Lord Rodger: conditions for an exception are: (1) impossibility of proving who caused the harm. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004, Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732, JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373, Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd & Another [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215, McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1, McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692, Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, O (A Child) v Rhodes [2016] AC 219, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388, R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245, Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4, Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 AC 281, Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27, St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] 11 ER 642, Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] Ch 20, Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985, Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46, Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1, Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3, 86 ER 684, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us. Glenhaven was successful in the lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,, Why Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services is important. Please subscribe or login to access full text content. PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). Secondly, the duty is one intended to create a civil right to compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach. Within these guidelines, claims could be founded against all the employers. Medical science had not progressed far enough for doctors to be able to state definitively that either, or both, periods of employment had caused the disease. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services, the HL held that where a claimant is unable to prove the but-for cause of their injuries due to insufficient medical knowledge, it is sufficient to show the defendant materially contributed to the risk of harm for the purposes of causation in the tort of negligence. This item appears on. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Ps had been exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times and they caught a disease from it. For the first time, the Court of Appeal applies the so-called Fairchild exception (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32) in a lung cancer case. 4 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. List: LLB102 Section: Weeks 8 and 9: Damage & Concurrent and Proportionate Liablility Next: Gorris v Scott © Oxford University Press, 2018. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. However it could not be proved which specific exposure caused the disease or at which moment it was contracted, so that no tortfeasor could be said on the balance of probabilities to have caused the disease. Lord Wilberforce expressed a similar view at 6–7. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Facts: The claimants had developed mesothelioma, a cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. Consider, then, the decision of the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Lord Nicholls: the doctrine is necessary in cases of two or more alternative causes to prevent patent unfairness: suppose A and B are hunting and shooting carelessly so that one of them (it is unknown which) shoots and injures passer-by C. If causation had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt then there would be no compensation. In Fairchild, D1, D2, D3, C’s employers, each successively, but independently, expose C negligently to asbestos dust. However FOR it are (1) the idea that P should be compensated for injury that his employer should have done more to prevent; (2) to exclude the rule would be to prevent all claims for injuries which are caused by a development over time rather than at one moment, as here. Mesothelioma can be caused by a single fibre of asbestos. one or more defendants had wrongfully caused the employee’s mesothelioma) and so all the potential causes of the employee’s mesothelioma were It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. 4 claimant’s chance of survival for a five-year period from 42% to 25%. 1. The special rule was the product of judicial innovation in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32 and in Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20; [2006] 2 AC 572. Access to the complete content on Law Trove requires a subscription or purchase. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1052 the CA considered the distinction between “occupancy duties” and “activity duties”, only the former of which fell under the 1957 Act. More often, applied simply and mechanically, it gives too expansive an answer: "But for your negligent misdelivery of my luggage, I should not have had to defer my passage to New York and embark on SS Titanic". Copyright © Type Article Page start 32 Page end 119 Is part of Journal Title [2003] 1 AC 32. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 and Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 AC 572 (in combination hereafter Fairchild-Barker) appears to replace probable with possible causation. However these reasons must be so good that it is worth depriving D of the protection afforded to him by the normal evidentiary rule. Acknowledgement of the increased material risk of harm test as an exception to the but for test. applied the so-called Fairchild exception (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32) and awarded damages against each defendant in proportion to the increase in risk for which it was responsible. Lords Kilbrandon and … the specifics of this case where the source of the problem is undoubted but it is impossible to pinpoint a particular moment or D that caused the disease) there was no need to prove “balance of probabilities.” Instead all that was necessary was that each defendant's wrongdoing had “materially increased the risk” of contracting the disease. This means that damages are awarded against each employer in proportion to the increase in risk for which each was responsible. Leaving aside Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002] 3 WLR 89 House of Lords This was a conjoined appeal involving three claimants who contracted mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer contracted by exposure to asbestos. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.