A man who had won a large compensation award because he developed an anxiety about exposure to asbestos dust while working at Leinster House has lost the money on appeal. The Supreme Court decision yesterday could lead to the abandonment of many compensation claims by public sector workers who have health concerns arising from exposure to asbestos dust.
The five-judge court unanimously allowed an appeal by the Commissioners of Public Works against an award of more than £48,700 to a man exposed to asbestos dust while working in the basement of Leinster House in the late 1980s.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the law should not be extended by the courts to allow plaintiffs to recover damages for psychiatric injury "resulting from an irrational fear of contracting a disease because of their negligent exposure to health risks by their employers, where their risk is characterised by their medical advisers as very remote".
Mr Stephen Fletcher (55), Springfield, Tallaght, Dublin, was a general operative who assisted in removing lagging from pipes at Leinster House. The lagging was in poor condition. He had not been told of the dangers associated with working in such a situation and only learned of them later from media reports.
In June 2001, the High Court awarded him damages of £48,760 and costs. Mr Justice O'Neill said he was satisfied Mr Fletcher was physically well but was very angry and upset.
He developed a condition known as a reactive anxiety neurosis about the risk of getting mesothelioma (a form of lung cancer).
His doctors told him that the chances of him ever getting that condition were extremely remote but he continued to worry about it. He was anxious about his future and while the risk was remote, it could not be said it was unreal.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice said the commissioners did not dispute any findings of Mr Justice O'Neill as to their failure to take proper precautions for Mr Fletcher's health and safety, his finding that as a result, Mr Fletcher was unnecessarily and without his knowledge exposed to significant quantities of asbestos dust and his finding that he was as a result subject to a risk, albeit remote, of contracting mesothelioma. The commissioners had not sought either to set aside the finding that Mr Fletcher as a result of knowing suffered a psychiatric illness.
They had submitted, however, that Mr Justice O'Neill's determination that Mr Fletcher was entitled to recover damages in respect of that psychiatric illness, when unaccompanied by any physical injury, was wrong in law. The issue which the Supreme Court had to resolve was whether Mr Fletcher was entitled to recover damages for the impairment of his "mental condition".
In a separate judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the appeal raised an important question, to what extent and subject to what limitations there might be an action in negligence where the sole injury for which damages was sought was a psychiatric condition resulting from the fear of contracting an illness as a result of alleged negligent acts and omissions.