The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases
description
Transcript of The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases
![Page 1: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases
Colin EttingerPartner, Irwin Mitchell
![Page 2: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Typical ScenarioJoe.60. contracts mesothelioma.
Heating and ventilation engineer for most of his working lifeEmployer (a) – 5 yearsEmployer (b) – 1 yearEmployer (c) - 9 years
Employer (c) is still trading and has viable insurance. Value £150,000Barker value £84,375 (56.25%)
![Page 3: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Non-negligent Exposure
If (a) and/or (b) were non-negligent does this get (c) off the hook?
Answer : No
![Page 4: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
“…… it should be irrelevant whether the other exposure was tortious or non-tortious, by natural causes or human agency or by the Claimant himself”
Lord Hoffman in Barker
![Page 5: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Tracing (a) and (b)• Company Registry search• Identify insurer
– ABI– Own knowledge– Shared knowledge– Expert– Initiative
• Restore company
![Page 6: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Apportionment“The damages which would have been awarded
against a Defendant who had actually caused the disease must be apportioned to the Defendants according to their contribution to the risks”
Lord Hoffman in Barker
![Page 7: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
How Is The Contribution To Risk To Be Determined?
“The issue will depend upon the duration of the exposure for which each negligent Defendant was responsible compared with the total duration of the Claimant’s exposure to the injurious agent in question. It might depend also on the intensity of the exposure for which the Defendant was responsible compared with the intensity of exposure for which the Defendant was not responsible. The exact type of agent might be a relevant factor in assessing the degree of risk. I have in mind there are different types of asbestos and some might create a greater risk than others. Other factors relevant to the degree of risk might come into the picture as well”.
Lord Scott in Barker
![Page 8: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• Duration of exposure• Intensity of exposure
![Page 9: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Types of Asbestos
• Croclidolite – 500• Amosite – 100• Crysotile - 1
![Page 10: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Evidence
• Lay evidence• Expert evidence
![Page 11: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Insurance Cover
• Single exposure see Phillips v Syndicate 992 2004 Lloyds
Ins.report REP.426• Multiple exposure ? Insurers’ liability limited to period on risk
![Page 12: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Pre- Barker Position• Statement from Joe likely to be sufficient• Same investigation on quantum• Settlement likely without proceedings• If proceedings necessary “show cause”
procedure• Trial listed within a few weeks• Claim likely to be resolved within 12 months
![Page 13: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Costs Factors• Significantly higher base costs• Significantly higher disbursements• 3 Defendants’ lawyers’ costs• Court fees
? How much saving ?? WHAT ABOUT JOE ?
![Page 14: The Impact of Barker v Corus (UK) PLC in Mesothelioma Cases](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070500/56816849550346895dde31ef/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
SOLUTION
• Legislation• ? Expert evidence may establish how each
significant exposure made a contribution