Barker v Corus – 2006

January 10, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Introduction to Barker v Corus – 2006

Barker v Corus – 2006 is a pivotal case in tort law, specifically addressing the liability of employers regarding occupational diseases stemming from workplace hazards. This case’s importance lies in its exploration of employer responsibility when employees suffer harm due to exposure to hazardous materials like asbestos. It fundamentally shapes legal understanding by delving into the complexities of employer duty of care, compensation for occupational illnesses, and legal precedents applicable to workplace-related health risks.

Case Background

The case involves workers who contracted severe health conditions, notably mesothelioma, due to prolonged exposure to asbestos while employed at Corus, a company involved in asbestos-related manufacturing. The affected individuals, including Barker, alleged that Corus failed to adequately protect them from the dangers of asbestos exposure despite being aware of its harmful effects. The case highlights the duty of employers to provide a safe working environment and the repercussions when this duty is breached, leading to severe health consequences for employees.

 Facts of the Case

Workers, including Barker, were exposed to asbestos while employed by Corus. Over time, they developed debilitating health conditions attributed to this exposure. The central issue was whether Corus was negligent in protecting its employees from asbestos exposure and whether this negligence resulted in the workers’ health problems. The case specifically focused on proving the causation between the exposure and resulting health issues, raising questions about employer responsibility and legal liability in occupational disease cases.

Legal Issues

The key legal issues centered around the duty of care owed by employers to their employees concerning workplace safety, especially regarding hazardous materials like asbestos. The case scrutinized whether Corus had adequately safeguarded its workers from the known risks of asbestos exposure and whether their failure to do so constituted negligence leading to the workers’ illnesses. It delved into the intricate nuances of establishing causation and employer liability in occupational disease claims.

Court Proceedings

During the court proceedings, arguments revolved around Corus’s awareness of the risks associated with asbestos and their measures, or lack thereof, to protect employees. The plaintiffs presented evidence supporting the link between the asbestos exposure at the workplace and the resulting health conditions. The court examined the facts to determine if Corus breached its duty of care and if this breach directly caused the workers’ illnesses.

Judgment and Rationale

The court ruled in favor of the workers, including Barker, stating that Corus had failed in its duty of care to provide a safe working environment. The judgment emphasized Corus’s knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos and their insufficient measures to mitigate these risks, leading to the workers’ illnesses. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of employer responsibility in ensuring workplace safety and its implications in occupational disease cases.

Impact and Significance

Barker v Corus – 2006 significantly influenced tort law by reinforcing employer obligations in safeguarding employees from workplace hazards. The case highlighted the gravity of employer negligence in occupational disease cases and set a precedent for holding employers accountable for failing to protect workers from known risks. Its impact resonates in guiding future cases and legislative considerations regarding workplace safety and employee health.

 Critique and Analysis

While the ruling affirmed employer liability, some legal experts critiqued the challenges in proving causation in occupational disease cases. The case underscored the difficulties in establishing a direct link between workplace exposure and resulting illnesses, raising debates about evidentiary standards and the complexities in attributing health issues solely to occupational hazards.


Barker v Corus – 2006 stands as a landmark case highlighting employer responsibility in protecting employees from workplace hazards. It significantly shaped legal interpretations surrounding employer duty of care and liability in occupational disease cases. This case’s enduring impact reinforces the imperative for employers to prioritize workplace safety, ensuring a healthy and secure environment for their workforce.

Why Choose Us:

Professional law papers earn full marks in examinations by demonstrating comprehensive understanding, meticulous research, and clear application of legal principles. They showcase in-depth analysis, citing relevant case law, statutes, and scholarly sources to support arguments. Papers that excel often present a well-structured, coherent narrative, articulating complex legal concepts with clarity. Clear identification and discussion of legal issues, coupled with critical evaluation and balanced reasoning, reflect a high level of legal acumen. Additionally, effective use of persuasive language, concise writing, and adherence to formatting guidelines contribute to papers that secure top marks, showcasing a profound grasp of legal intricacies.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Barker v Corus – 2006' (, September 2012 ) <> accessed 23 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Barker v Corus – 2006. Retrieved from
"Barker v Corus – 2006." 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <>.
"Barker v Corus – 2006." MyLawTutor., September 2012. Web. 23 April 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Barker v Corus – 2006. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 23 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Barker v Corus – 2006 [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 23 April 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Barker v Corus – 2006 | |date=September 2012 |accessdate=23 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top