The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Commissioners of Public Works and dismissed Stephen Fletcher’s claim for damages for psychiatric injury after workplace asbestos exposure. The Court held that damages could not be recovered for psychiatric illness arising from fear of disease where medical advisers characterised the risk as very remote.
Fletcher, an employee of the Commissioners, worked from 1985 in Leinster House, helping maintain its heating system. The High Court found that asbestos lagging on pipes was in very poor condition and that Fletcher regularly removed it without being told of the danger or given protective equipment. He inhaled significant quantities of asbestos dust over several years.
The defendants did not appeal the High Court’s findings that they had failed to take proper safety precautions, that Fletcher had been exposed to asbestos and faced a risk of mesothelioma, or that he later suffered a psychiatric illness. The High Court had found the defendants guilty of gross negligence and awarded Fletcher £48,000. Those findings were not the issue decided on this appeal.
Medical evidence was that Fletcher had no physical impairment from the exposure and that his risk of developing mesothelioma was “very remote”. A psychiatrist diagnosed reactive anxiety neurosis after Fletcher learned of the risk. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Keane, treated the appeal as concerning damages for that psychiatric injury, rather than compensation for future physical disease risk.
The Court distinguished the claim from “nervous shock” cases, which involve a sudden perception of a horrifying event. Fletcher’s anxiety followed his learning about the exposure and its potential consequences. The judgment considered whether damages could nevertheless be awarded for psychiatric illness in a “fear of disease” case. It concluded that permitting recovery where medical advisers assessed the disease risk as very remote would extend liability in a way that policy considerations did not support.
The Court allowed the appeal and substituted an order dismissing Fletcher’s claim. It did not disturb the unappealed findings about the Commissioners’ negligence and asbestos exposure. The judgment said the same liability principles applied to the claim based on breach of statutory duty because no specific statutory provision authorised damages for psychiatric injury in these circumstances.