0370 270 6000

Fairchild v Leeds City Council and Others

8 February 2001
The issues

Mesothelioma – Exposure – Causation – Equal Likelihood of Exposure at Premises of Second or Third Defendants

The facts

The Claimant sued as Widow of her late husband for damages for his death from Mesothelioma. Medical evidence was agreed but Mesothelioma was the cause of death and that his condition had developed as a result of exposure to asbestos fibres during his employment as a joiner at premises owned by the Second and Third Defendants and that the relevant exposure could have occurred at either of the two premises or in combination in circumstances in which it was impossible to say that one was more likely than the other.

The decision

The Court was unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the breaches of duty by either the Second or Third Defendant were a cause of or material contribution to F:s Mesothelioma.

Action dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up