Parliament Acts

            In Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20, the House of Lords by a majority of 4 – 1 ruled that mesothelioma victims who had suffered asbestos exposure at the hands of a multiplicity of employers were not entitled to recover in full from an employer that had made a material but limited contribution to the overall risk of injury, and that damages in such cases were to be reduced to reflect the extent of  such an employer’s contribution to the risk.

            This would have had a devastating impact on the level of damages recovered by a substantial proportion of the 2,000 victims who develop the fatal disease every year, since in practice many of these unfortunate individuals have histories of exposure over several decades involving a number of different companies, many of which have ceased to exist or for which no insurance cover exists.

            The ruling, which was published on 3 May, provoked widespread dismay and calls for legislative intervention. On 13 June, the Prime Minister at a GMB conference in Blackpool referred to the ruling and stated,

            “I regret that judgment. I’m looking at the moment to see the best opportunity for     us to change it. If we can change it, we will.”

            What followed showed that this was not just empty political rhetoric. By 6 July, the Government had tabled an amendment to the Compensation Bill that was then going through Parliament. It had been introduced in the Lords and this was the last date for tabling amendments before the Report stage and 3rd Reading in the Commons on 17 July.

            By 25 July the measure was on the statute book. Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 effectively reverses the House of Lords ruling by providing that any defendant that is liable in a claim for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure for materially increasing the risk or for any other reason shall be liable for the whole of the damage, although this does not, of course, prevent one defendant from claiming a contribution from another employer who is responsible for contributing to the risk. Section 16 not only provides that s. 3 shall be treated as having always had effect but even contains provision for re-opening settlements and varying awards that may have been made between the date of the House of Lord’s decision and the Act coming into force.

            The astonishing speed within which this was accomplished shows how effective, given the political will, Parliament can be in the field of law reform, and in our age of cynicism this humane response by our legislature surely deserves credit. 

IAN ASHFORD-THOM