The difference between the decisions in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] and the similar case of Barker v Corus [2006] is not in the reason for the decision but only in the decision relating to the extent of the defendant's liability.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement is true. Liability was based on exactly the same principle in the two cases (material increase of the risk of harm) but while in Fairchild the multiple defendants were held to be jointly and severally liable (so each would be liable to pay 100% of the damages and could seek a contribution from the others), in Barker the House of Lords held that each defendant should only be liable for a portion of the damages equivalent to the length of time the claimant had spent in their employment. This position which could leave claimants in the incongruous position of winning a case but seeing little or no compensation has since been reversed by the Compensation Act 2006 (as interpreted by Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011]).

The Difference Between the Decisions in Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral