Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2016 |
| Date | 15 February 2016 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Dyson Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Sales
Where damages were claimed in respect of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos during employment with several different employers, and it could not be established scientifically which exposure had caused the cancer, the test of causation to be applied was that applicable in analogous mesotheli oma cases. Proof that a defendant employer had materially contributed to the risk of the deceased contracting lung cancer was sufficient to establish liability.
The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Carl Heneghan (suing as the son and executor of James Leo Heneghan, deceased) against the decision of Mr Justice JayUNK ([2014] EWHC 2438 (Admin)) in favour of the defendants, (1) Manchester Dry Docks Ltd, (2) 00722056 Lt d, (3) Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd, (4) R. Blackett Charlton Ltd, (5) S.C. Cheadle Hulme Ltd and (6) Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd, that damages were to be apportioned according to each defendant's contribution to the deceased's risk of contracting lung cancer.
Mr David Allan, QC and Mr Simon Kilvington for the claimant; Mr David Platt, QC and Mr Peter Houghton for the defendants.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that damages were claimed on behalf of the deceased's estate and on behalf of his widow against six of the deceased's former employers alleging exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and further alleging that the asbestos to which each of the defendants h ad exposed him had caused his lung cancer.
Judgment was entered by consent against all of the defendants. The consent order identified an issue as to whether each defendant was liable for damages in full or only a portion of the damages. If the claimant's case on causation was right he was entitled to full damages of ú175,000, but if the de fendants' case was correct, the recoverable damages were ú61,600 on the basis of the exception in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services LtdTLRELR (The Times June 21, 2002; [2003] 1 AC 32).
The appeal was of some general importance because it was the first time that the Court of Appeal had considered whether the Fairchild exception should be applied in a case of multiple exposures leading to lung cancer (as opposed to mesothelioma).
In Fairchild all the claimant employees had been exposed to asbestos dust during periods of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Docherty's Executors v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
...Times, 6 December 1976; (1977) 121 SJ 677 Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 86; [2016] 1 WLR 2036; [2016] ICR 671; The Times, 1 April 2016 John Walker & Sons Ltd v Douglas McGibbon & Co Ltd 1972 SLT 128; [1975] RPC 506 Longworth v Hope (1865) 3 M 1049 McElroy v McAllister ......
-
The new labor law.
...[http://perma.cc /785R-PCV3]. (275.) Steven Greenhouse, How the $15 Minimum Wage Went from Laughable to Viable, N.Y. Times (Apr. 1, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/sunday-review/how-the -15-minimum-wage-went-from-laughable-to-viable.html [http://perma.cc/Q58V-HHBB] (discussing the ......
-
POLITICAL RISK MANAGEMENT.
...[https://perma.cc/UL32-JFUH]. (380.) But see Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael W. Toffel, Opinion, The Power of C.E.O. Activism, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 1, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/the-power-of-ceo-activism.html [https://perma.cc/GQ5L-5Z2P] ("[I]n an era of political......
-
RETURN OF THE CAMPUS SPEECH WARS.
...[https://perma.cc/D6YP-Z72D]. (12.) P. 7; see Katie Rogers, Pro-Trump Chalk Messages Cause Conflicts on College Campuses, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 1, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/pro-trump-chalkmessages-cause-conflicts-on-college-campuses.html (on file with the Michigan Law (13.) Vi......
-
SILENT NO MORE: HOW DEEPFAKES WILL FORCE COURTS TO RECONSIDER VIDEO ADMISSION STANDARDS.
...party to challenge the photo or video evidence admitted. Id. See Timothy Williams et al., Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 1, 2016), archived at https://perma.cc/JK6X-LCNA (exposing issues of perception with video evidence). The New York Times study showed how police ......