Talk:Barker v Corus (UK) plc

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has a basic error that is decisive for the whole decision: the claimants had also worked on a self-employed basis, and thus there was a probability that they themselves had caused their sickness! Thus, there is a decisive difference between Barker v. Corus and Fairchild. The article therefore needs to be amended, with regard both to the facts of the case as well as to the conclusion, which is materially wrong. C. Kruse

Start a discussion about improving the Barker v Corus (UK) plc page

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Barker v Corus (UK) plc" page.

Start a discussion