Epidemiological evidence of attributable fractions (probability of causation) cannot be treated as evidence of material contribution to harm in dust diseases litigation; and in appeals restricted to errors of law, complaints about the weight given to uncross-examined expert evidence do not raise errors of law provided the primary judge acknowledged the significance of the absence of cross-examination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.