Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others, Dyson and Another v Leeds City Counci: CA 11 Dec 2001

Where a claimant suffered mesothelioma, contracted whilst working with asbestos, but the disease may have been contracted from inhalation at different times, and with different employers, his claim must fail since it was not possible to identify which employer was in fact responsible so as to allow the court to apportion liability. The disease arose after a single cell was affected. 90% of mesothelioma was contracted following exposure to asbestos. The law should not be distorted to assist in a hard case. Section 2(2) of the 1957 Act related to ‘occupancy’, not ‘activity’ liability. The court drew a clear distinction between the occupancy duties and the activity duties of an occupier. The 1957 Act was concerned only to replace the old common law rules relating to the occupancy duties of an occupier. Where the complaint arose from dust created by contractor’s activities, the occupier owed no common law duties of occupancy to the claimant.
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Latham, And, Lord Justice Kay
[2002] ICR 412, [2002] IRLR 129, [2002] PIQR P27, Times 13-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1881, [2002] 1 WLR 1052
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
CitedSaggar v Ministry of Defence EAT 25-May-2004
Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166980