Legal casebook: Causation and asbestos
This report relates to 3 case(s)
-
expand
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 533 HL
(6 other reports)
-
- 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.
-
- Date:
- 1 August 2002
In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others, 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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?
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
expand disabled
McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008 HL (0 other reports)
-
expand disabled
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871 HL (0 other reports)
Question: I have read in the press about an industrial injury case
involving a number of claimants suing former employers because they have
contracted mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos. This has been described
as a landmark judgment. Can you explain what the ruling was and why it is so
important?
View the full article today
Register to read this article
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in