This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Employer's liability: Successive employers were jointly liable for materially increasing risk of employees' disease

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 533 HL (6 other reports)

    • Case round-up

      Date:
      1 September 2002

      Our resident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

    • House of Lords victory for asbestosis victims

      Date:
      8 July 2002

      The House of Lords has overturned the Court of Appeal decision last December in the test cases of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and related cases.

    • When the dust settles

      Date:
      1 July 2002

      The Law Lords have re-opened the door to compensation claims for asbestos-related disease. But how far-reaching will the ruling be?

    • Asbestos compensation

      Date:
      1 July 2002

      Earlier reports that the floodgates for litigation would open following the Law Lords' ruling on victims of mesothelioma may well prove to have been exaggerated.

    • Legal casebook: Causation and asbestos

      Date:
      1 July 2002

      An explanation of employers' liability in cases of employee illnesses contracted through exposure to asbestos.

    • House of Lords averts major asbestos "injustice"

      Date:
      1 June 2002

      The House of Lords has reversed what the Court of Appeal called a "major injustice" to mesothelioma victims. The ruling, on 16 May, means that victims of this fatal asbestos-induced disease are, after all, eligible for compensation from their former employers.

In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2002] UKHL 22, and related cases, the House of Lords holds that, where it is established that successive employers had each failed in their duty of care to protect an employee from contracting a disease during his or her employment with them, but it cannot be proved which particular employment had caused the damage complained of, each employer could be held liable in damages for the breach. Proof that each employer's wrongdoing had materially increased the risk of the employee contracting the disease was sufficient proof that each one had materially contributed to the disease.