AB & Ors v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade & Industry)

A compensation agreement must be construed objectively and as a whole, using the background reasonably available to the parties while excluding their prior negotiations and subjective intentions. The agreement may adopt a practical, broad-brush mechanism to achieve fairness, consistency and expedition. Under this agreement, where chronic bronchitis symptoms developed while a miner was working underground, the respiratory specialist had to determine whether the condition existed and whether it occurred during the relevant employment. The specialist was not required to make a separate clinical determination that mining exposure caused or materially contributed to the condition. A causal assessment was required for chronic bronchitis developing after employment had ceased.

The dispute concerned the interpretation of the Claims Handling Agreement governing compensation claims in the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation. The Department of Trade and Industry argued that compensation for chronic bronchitis required a respiratory specialist to find that mining dust or fumes had caused or materially contributed to the condition. The claimants argued that, for symptoms arising during underground employment, the specialist had only to determine whether the miner had chronic bronchitis and whether it was present during that employment. The issue was whether the agreement imposed an additional case-by-case causation assessment.

1. Construction of the agreement. The Claims Handling Agreement had to be construed objectively, as a whole, by reference to the meaning it would convey to a reasonable person with the relevant admissible background. Prior negotiations and the parties’ subjective intentions were inadmissible. Evidence of post-contract conduct, including the manner in which respiratory specialists had applied the agreement, was also inadmissible as an aid to construction.
2. Chronic bronchitis during employment. The agreement’s Claim Questionnaire, Guidance and Medical Assessment Report Form required the respiratory specialist to determine whether the miner had symptoms satisfying the MRC definition of chronic bronchitis, whether other conditions had been excluded, and whether the condition was present during underground employment at a British Coal mine. They did not require a separate clinical judgment that mining dust or fumes had caused or materially contributed to chronic bronchitis where symptoms developed during that employment.
3. Late-onset chronic bronchitis. The agreement treated chronic bronchitis developing after employment differently. In that situation, the specialist had to assess whether the condition developed sufficiently closely to the end of employment to have been caused or contributed to by mine dust.
4. The agreed approach was a reasonable and pragmatic means of securing fairness, consistency and expedition in a scheme dealing with very large numbers of claims. A claimant satisfying the two relevant questions for chronic bronchitis arising during underground employment was therefore entitled to compensation, subject to the other requirements of the agreement.