AB & Ors v British Coal Corporation & Anor

A court managing exceptionally large group litigation may approve and impose a practical settlement methodology, including on an interested party which did not sign the agreement, provided the scheme is fair, workable and subject to review. A settlement is reasonable where, viewed across the cohort, awards are broadly comparable with common-law damages, even though individual awards may be higher or lower. A contractor working in a mine remains subject to a non-delegable duty of care. It cannot rely on the mine owner’s statutory regime, custom or prevailing industry practice where those arrangements failed to minimise dust. Contractual obligations to comply with statutory requirements and minimise dust may support proportionate indemnity. Contribution is available only for the same damage, and apportionment must reflect causative potency and blameworthiness.

The Department of Trade and Industry, as successor to British Coal, sought contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and contractual indemnity from coal-mining contractors. British Coal had previously been held liable in Griffiths for respiratory injury caused by dust exposure, and had settled the resulting mass claims through a court-approved Claims Handling Agreement (CHA).

The contractors disputed the reasonableness and legal effect of the CHA, denied contractual and tortious liability, relied on British Coal’s statutory control of the mines, and challenged the medical assessments. The issues included whether the CHA bound the contractors, whether it provided a reasonable basis for contribution, the scope of the contractors’ duties to minimise dust and promote respirator use, and the appropriate apportionment of responsibility.

1. CHA and contribution. The CHA was a fair, workable and proportionate method for resolving exceptionally numerous claims. Its scheme-based calculations could not reproduce every common-law assessment exactly, but were collectively “somewhere around” the common-law result. The settlements were therefore reasonable, and the Defendants could claim contribution by reference to them. The CHA was legally binding on the Third Party despite its not having been a party to the agreement, because it had been approved in the management of the group litigation and remained subject to judicial review.
2. Statutory contribution. The relevant damage was the same respiratory damage caused by concurrent acts and omissions. Contribution under section 1(1) of the 1978 Act was available only to the extent of the Third Party’s responsibility for that damage. Section 1(4) had no application because the Defendants’ liability was established. The amount had to be just and equitable under section 2(1).
3. Contract and duty of care. The contracts required the contractors to comply with the statutory regime, co-operate with the colliery manager and conduct their own operations so as to minimise dust. Reliance on approved or permitted levels impermissibly disregarded the contractual language. The contractors’ employers’ duty was non-delegable. British Coal’s control, the statutory hierarchy and prevailing industry culture did not relieve the contractors of responsibility for their own employees.
4. Dust and respirators. The contractors repeatedly failed to adopt reasonable dust-suppression measures, including effective ventilation maintenance, wet drilling, housekeeping, equipment maintenance and safe control after shotfiring. They also failed, from 1965 onwards, to provide or encourage the use of suitable respirators during materially dusty work. The fact that British Coal had failed similarly did not provide a defence.
5. Causation and apportionment. Precise scientific attribution was impossible. The contractors’ generic breaches materially increased the risk of the relevant respiratory injury. Apportionment had to reflect both causative potency and relative blameworthiness, rather than time alone. The generic allocation was 70 per cent to British Coal and 30 per cent to the contractors, subject to evidence justifying adjustment in individual cases. Contractual indemnity was available only to the extent of the contractors’ proportionate responsibility.
6. Medical assessments. The CHA’s Medical Assessment Process was generally robust. Individual errors did not undermine the scheme as a whole, although identified errors could be corrected in particular cases.