000			02033cam a2200301 4500
001			ABS65719
008			020802n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119159
245			_aFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others; Fox v Spousal (Midlands) Ltd; Matthews v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1978) Ltd and another
260			_c2002
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2002] 3 WLR 89-171 (42)
520			_a[2002] UKHL 22, 20 June 2002. Three appeals against CA decisions heard together related to employees who had developed mesothelioma caused by exposure at work to asbestos dust during periods of employment with more than one employer. In two cases the claims were dismissed as it was not deemed possible on the balance of probabilities to establish which defendant was responsible for the harmful exposure; in the third case liability was apportioned between the three defendants. "Held" appeals allowed. Where an employee had been exposed to asbestos by differing employers during differing periods of employment and the onset of disease could not be attributed medically to any particular or cumulative exposure, a modified approach to proof of causation was justified, the claimants proving on a balance of probabilities the necessary causal connection to establish the defendants' liability. View judgment at www.publications.parliament.uk/.
590			_aABS
650			_aFAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-HEALTH AND SAFETY-HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-ASBESTOS
650			_aASBESTOSIS
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aCAUSATION
650			_aBREACH OF DUTY
650			_aPERSONAL INJURY
650			_aBUT FOR TEST
650			_aMESOTHELIOMA
650			_aMCGHEE V NATIONAL COAL BOARD
650			_aWILSHER V ESSEX HEALTH AUTHORITY
690			_aHEALTH AND SAFETY _96244
856			_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/fchild-1.htm _zView judgment on the HL website...
942			_n0
999			_c70883 _d70883