Key Facts
- •Michael Holmes, a Poeton Holdings Ltd employee from 1982 to 2020, developed Parkinson's disease.
- •Holmes claimed damages, alleging Poeton's breach of duty by exposing him to unsafe TCE levels (1982-1997).
- •The trial judge found Poeton liable for all consequences of Holmes' Parkinson's disease.
- •Poeton appealed, contesting the judge's causation analysis and factual findings.
- •Holmes' claim was not based on the 'Fairchild exception' (increased risk of disease).
- •Poeton's degreasing tank was considered 'normal' but had operational practices leading to high TCE exposure.
- •Holmes' exposure involved using the tank, cold cleaning, and tank cleaning.
- •The judge found Poeton breached COSHH regulations, the Factories Act 1961, and common law duty.
- •The judge found a material contribution in fact from TCE exposure to Holmes' Parkinson's disease.
- •Parkinson's disease was characterized as an indivisible injury.
Legal Principles
Material contribution test for causation in indivisible injury cases.
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] 1 AC 613; Bailey v MOD [2009] 1 WLR 1052 (CA)
In cases of indivisible injury, a tortfeasor who makes a material contribution to the injury is liable for the whole.
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] 1 AC 613; Simmons v British Steel PLC [2004] UKHL 20
'But for' test of causation; the need to prove that but for the defendant’s negligence, the claimant’s injury would not have happened.
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988] AC 1074
Fairchild exception: where multiple tortious exposures increased the risk of an indivisible disease, each tortfeasor is liable.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572
Generic causation: proof that exposure to a substance can cause the disease.
Various
Individual causation: proof that the specific tortious exposure caused or materially contributed to the individual's disease.
Various
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's conclusion that TCE exposure materially contributed to Holmes' Parkinson's disease was unsustainable on the evidence. The evidence of a causative link was deemed insufficient to establish either generic or individual causation. The court held that while a plausible mechanism was identified, this alone is not sufficient.