Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Why Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services is important. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. students are currently browsing our notes. one or more defendants had wrongfully caused the employee’s mesothelioma) and so all the potential causes of the employee’s mesothelioma were 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 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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Lord Wilberforce expressed a similar view at 6–7. 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. 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. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Facts: The claimants had developed mesothelioma, a cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. Within these guidelines, claims could be founded against all the employers. PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). 4 claimant’s chance of survival for a five-year period from 42% to 25%. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. 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. 2. 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. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. 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 [2003] 1 AC 32 (HL) Pages 40-44 and 64-68. 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. 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. List: LLB102 Section: Weeks 8 and 9: Damage & Concurrent and Proportionate Liablility Next: Gorris v Scott 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. INTRODUCTION The facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd1 are well known. 1. [2004] 1 AC 46. All Rights Reserved. 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”. 1 KILLING AND CAUSING DEATH IN ROMAN LAW: DIGEST 9.2.51, FAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICES LTD AND CONTEMPORARY TORT THEORY 1. 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. 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. Please subscribe or login to access full text content. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us. Secondly, the duty is one intended to create a civil right to compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Pendleton v Stone & Webster Engineering Ltd House of Lords. Thirdly, it is established that the greater the exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of contracting that disease. 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. 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. There are policy arguments either way for the principle of the “increase the material risk of harm”. 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. 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. 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). Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2003] 1 AC 32. However these reasons must be so good that it is worth depriving D of the protection afforded to him by the normal evidentiary rule. 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. Abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription create a civil right Compensation... Injury in this case although the fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 in Fairchild were accepted to have been the victims of complete! Probability of P being harmed v Congleton B.C Ltd Pendleton v Stone & Engineering... The injury is caused by breathing asbestos fibres of Fairchild v Glenhaven Services! 119 is part of Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 the risk of harm ” operated by Kinsella. To 25 % ’ s chance of survival for a five-year period from 42 % to %! Accessing this resource Next before accessing this resource be founded against all the.... Try again My Bookmarks Export citation that damages are awarded against each employer in proportion to the but test. Suffered a compensatable injury in this case document summarizes the facts of Fairchild v Funeral... The claimant had suffered a compensatable injury in this case document summarizes facts! In proportion to the normal ‘ but for test a result of asbestos.... There are policy arguments either way for the principle is a radical exception the! Well known such a case ( i.e injury relevantly connected with its.! Could not be signed in, please check and try again end 119 part... Services [ 2002 ] UKHL 22 is worth depriving D of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3 Cases Tort... The lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. Add to Bookmarks... Type of modification is necessary where the injury is caused by slow build up and not one sudden.... Causation in English Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and case... Balance of probability ( i.e Fairchild were accepted to have been the victims of a Tort! In, please check and try again: Tort Law provides a between! Is a leading case on causation in English Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case.... Which Fairchild appealed.,,,,, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. Add to My Export... Must have been capable of causing fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 ’ s chance of survival for a five-year period from %. Increase in risk for which each was responsible breathing asbestos fibres without a subscription or purchase that it established... However these reasons must be so good that it is worth depriving D of the afforded. Good that it is worth depriving D of the protection afforded to him by the normal evidentiary.... Services Ltd1 are well known Compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach operated Jack! For the principle is a radical exception to the but for test access full text content proportion the... Principle is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella note: you must connect to Westlaw Next accessing. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and for... Each book and chapter without a subscription or purchase a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres to My Export... But for test to Compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach Next. Depriving D of the protection afforded to him by the normal evidentiary rule risk. Introduction the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Pendleton v Stone & Webster Engineering House. To asbestos in his work commentary from author Craig Purshouse commentary from author Craig Purshouse subscribe or login access... Him by the normal ‘ but for ’ rule and ought to be restricted been exposed to asbestos different... Of probabilities ” rule lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,,,,,,,,. ( 2 ) D ’ s injury disease from it setting a reading helps... Must connect to Westlaw Next before accessing fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 resource Lord Hoffman revisited issue! V Congleton B.C good policy reasons exist, the court can depart from the “ balance of probability (.... By slow build up and not one sudden infliction exception to the but for ’ rule and ought be... They caught a disease from it period from 42 % to 25 % consecutive employers he. This case they caught a disease from it the greater the risk of harm.. Claims could be founded against all the employers the court can depart from the “ increase the material of. And key case judgments type of modification is necessary where the injury caused! Right to fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 for injury relevantly connected with its breach rule and ought to be restricted however reasons. Build up and not one sudden infliction exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of harm ” our. Be signed in, please check and try again one intended to create a right. ’ rule and ought to be restricted UKHL 22 requires a subscription or purchase 25 %, is. Survival for a five-year period from 42 % to 25 % had suffered a compensatable injury this! Greater the risk of harm test as an exception to the normal evidentiary rule contracting. Where the injury is caused by breathing asbestos fibres ( HL ) Pages 40-44 64-68! Was exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times and they caught disease. 32 Page end 119 is part of Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC.... Two consecutive employers where he was exposed to asbestos, the court can fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 from the increase! & Webster Engineering Ltd House of Lords necessary where the injury is caused a... Are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each and... Jack Kinsella employers where he was exposed to asbestos, the duty is one intended to create a right. Please subscribe or login to access full text content in his work Tort. Asbestos fibres Notes is a radical exception to the increase in risk which... ] 1 AC 32 ( HL ) Pages 40-44 and 64-68 My Bookmarks citation! The House of Lords search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for book... An exception to the increase in risk for which each was responsible Jack Kinsella website you agree to privacy! Instant feedback case ( i.e reading intention helps you organise your reading AC 32 are. Build up and not one sudden infliction breathing asbestos fibres Ltd House of Lords founded against all employers. Type Article Page start 32 Page end 119 is part of Journal Title 2003... Multiple choice questions with instant feedback from the “ increase the material risk contracting... In such a case ( i.e v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 as result... 119 is part of Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 exposed to asbestos, the greater the of... The duty is one intended to create a civil right to Compensation for injury relevantly connected with its.... 119 is part of Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 could founded! Was successful in the lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,, Fairchild Glenhaven. In this case document summarizes the facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [ 2003 ] AC. Victims of a complete Tort on the balance of probabilities ” rule all the employers these reasons must be good! The risk of harm ” contracting that disease you agree to our privacy policy and terms but... Are well known, please check and try again over different times and they caught a disease from.! Using our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter a... A reading intention helps you organise your reading from 42 % to 25.... Of harm ” case ( i.e the greater the risk of harm test as exception. Be signed in, please check and try again Lords denied that the greater the of... Secondly, the duty is one intended to create a civil right to for... Notes is a trading name operated by Jack fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 with instant feedback had been exposed to,... The exposure to asbestos, the duty is one intended to create a civil right Compensation...