Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32 (HL)

Facts

The claimants were employees who had worked for multiple employers at different times. During their employment, they were negligently exposed to asbestos by more than one employer. They later developed mesothelioma, a fatal disease caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres.

Medical science could not determine which particular exposure, or which employer, had caused the disease. It was established that mesothelioma can be triggered by a single fibre, but it was impossible to prove on the balance of probabilities which employer’s breach had caused the illness.

Under ordinary causation principles, the claimants would fail because they could not prove that any single defendant had probably caused the injury.

---

Issue

Can a claimant recover damages where multiple employers negligently exposed him to asbestos, but it is scientifically impossible to prove which exposure caused the disease?

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that the claimants could recover. Each employer who had materially increased the risk of mesothelioma was liable, despite the inability to prove which exposure caused the disease.

---

Legal Principle

Where (1) multiple defendants have breached their duty of care, (2) each breach materially increased the risk of a single indivisible injury, and (3) scientific uncertainty makes it impossible to prove causation in the usual way, liability may be imposed on the basis of material increase in risk rather than proof of probable causation.

---

Importance

• Creates a significant exception to the traditional “but for” test of causation.

• Introduces the “material increase in risk” principle in mesothelioma cases.

• Reflects judicial willingness to adapt causation rules where scientific uncertainty would otherwise deny recovery.

• Forms the foundation for later asbestos litigation and statutory intervention.