The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Commissioners of Public Works in a case brought by Stephen Fletcher, setting aside a High Court judgment that had awarded him damages for a psychiatric condition linked to fear of future asbestos-related disease.
The appeal concerned whether damages could be recovered where the claimant had no asbestos-related disease and the claimed injury was psychiatric illness arising from fear of contracting one. The Commissioners conceded that Fletcher had been negligently exposed to asbestos dust while working for them. The medical evidence described the risk of serious or fatal disease as minimal or remote.
At the High Court trial, Mr Justice O’Neill found that Fletcher had a recognised psychiatric illness and that it resulted from his asbestos exposure. Fletcher described anxiety, anger, disturbed sleep and fear of death. A psychiatrist diagnosed reactive anxiety neurosis, described as moderate to severe, and said the condition was likely to continue. The trial judge awarded £45,000 in general damages and £3,760 in special damages.
The Commissioners argued on appeal that the anxiety was triggered by Fletcher learning about the exposure and its possible consequences, including through media coverage. They also argued that a person of normal fortitude would not develop the psychiatric condition in the circumstances and that policy considerations should prevent recovery. Those were the appellants’ submissions, not findings that the Supreme Court needed to make to resolve the appeal.
In the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Geoghegan on 21 February 2003, the court said foreseeability alone does not determine whether a duty of care exists; proximity, reasonableness and public policy may also matter. It considered the trial judge’s view that psychiatric injury was foreseeable, even for a person of normal fortitude, to be open to him. But the court held that this did not settle whether a duty of care should be imposed.
The Supreme Court concluded that it would be unreasonable to impose on employers a duty to guard against fear of disease, even where that fear led to a psychiatric condition. It said compensation should not be allowed for such fear in the circumstances of the case. The court expressly approached the appeal on the basis that the damages were for psychiatric injury only and did not decide whether asbestos fibres in the lungs, without symptoms, amounted to physical injury.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment. The judgment does not state a replacement damages award.