Barker v Corus
House of Lords 3rd May 2006
The House of Lords handed out its judgment on 3rd May 2006 in the case of Barker -v- Corus (formerly Barker -v-Saint Gobain Pipelines plc) and two related Appeals. These three Appeals raised two important questions which were left undecided following Fairchild.
In Fairchild the House of Lords had relaxed the normal rule that it must be proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defenders' conduct did cause the damage. Because the state of scientific knowledge did not enable any claimant, who had been exposed to more than one significant source of asbestos to satisfy this test, their Lordships applied an exceptional and less demanding test: that it was enough to show the Defendants' conduct increased the likelihood of damage being suffered and may have caused it. The two unanswered questions were:-
1. What are the limits of this exception to the normal rule?
2. Are all Defendants jointly and severally liable or is the Defendant only liable for his contribution to the total risk of the claimant contracting the disease?
Both of these questions were raised by the Appeal in Barker -v- Corus (UK) plc. Mr Barker died of asbestos related mesothelioma in 1996. During his working career he had three material exposures to asbestos. For six weeks in 1958 while working for Graessers Limited. The second between April and October 1962 whilst working for John Summers Limited (now Corus UK Limited). The third was for at least three short periods between 1968 and 1975 whilst working as a self-employed plasterer.