Counsel 8
In this edition we have four important House of Lords' decisions.
Barker v Corus is important in defining how the liability of an employer for mesothelioma arises and in contradicting interpretations of Fairchild. The Lords in Barker stated that under Fairchild there was no finding of actual causation, nor was there a legal fiction that exposure was deemed to have caused the disease. Liability was based solely on contribution to the risk of mesothelioma developing. A finding of liability against an employer for mesothelioma therefore is not a finding that the employer caused the disease or that he is deemed in law to have caused the disease.
The Compensation Act does not reverse Barker in respect of the explanation of how liability arises; it says only that an employer liable in tort will be liable for 100% of the damages.
In Majrowski the Lords confirmed that employers have a vicarious liability under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997, a new liability for employers.
In Haward v Fawcetts and Law Society v Sephton the House of Lords has provided useful guidance on the interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980.
Finally, we have two High Court decisions, McMinn v McMinn on the Road Traffic Act, and KR v Royal & Sun Alliance plc on the “deliberate act” exclusion.
Barker v Corus, House of Lords, 3 May 2006
Haward and Others v Fawcetts, House of Lords, 1 March 2006
KR and Others v Royal & Sun Alliance plc, High Court, Queens Bench Division, 26 January 2006
Law Society v Sephton, House of Lords, 10 May 2006
Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust, House of Lords, 12 July 2006
McMinn v McMinn, High Court, 11 April 2006
If you would like any further information on the topics raised here, please contact either Brendan O'Keeffe or Jimi Groom.
Brendan O’Keeffe
Claims Counsel, Swiss Re UK
Back to Swiss Re UK's homepage
