Asbestos litigation – UK ruling: date of injury = exposure

A matter of significant controversy and debate in latent injury claims, such as mesotheioma is when the injury was “sustained” or “contracted”. The date of the injury is of significant interest because it defines the relevant legislation and insurance which is applicable.

The UK Supreme Court in the decision of Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Limited (In Scheme of Arrangement) and others v Durham and others [2012] UKSC 14, has applied the rationale in the decisions of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 and Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 to find that the date of injury in mesothelioma is the date of exposure and not when the tumour manifests itself. I refer you to the media summary by way overview.

The exception to the causation test applied in Fairchild/Barker is yet to find traction in Australia.

I refer to my earlier posts in this respect:

HCA: DDT & appeal of Booth – causation sufficient

Friday, December 16th, 2011

HCA -lung cancer – asbestos exposure + smoking = lack of material contribution/causation

Thursday, March 4th, 2010


Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

Related Posts

Recent Comments



    Discover more from David Cormack, Barrister

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading