Like in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the claimants had contracted mesothelioma after having worked for a number of different employers, all of whom had negligently exposed them to asbestos.

What distinguishes this case from Fairchild is that the conduct of the employers of the claimants were not exclusively tortious.

[1] Mesothelioma is a fatal illness which is caused by exposure to asbestos, but the risk of which increases depending on how often one is exposed.

The defendant was a wrongdoer, it is true, and should not be allowed to escape liability altogether, but he should not be liable for more than the damage which he caused and, since this is a case in which science can deal only in probabilities, the law should accept that position and attribute liability according to probabilities.

[2] After the decision in Barker, there was a swift and fierce political backlash, with large numbers of workers, families, trade unions,[3] and Members of Parliament calling for the reversal of the ruling.