A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 26 febrero 2018
The claimant, as widow and executrix of the deceased, claimed damages in respect of the deceased's mesothelioma caused as a result of exposure to asbestos during the course of the deceased's employment with the defendant from 1965 to 1968.
The deceased worked for the defendant as a plumber. It was alleged that the deceased was exposed as a result of:
The claim was initially heard by HHJ Yelton who heard oral evidence from expert engineers for the claimant (Mr Bradley) and the defendant (Mr Glenn). The claim was dismissed at 1st instance following the decision of Williams v University of Birmingham  EWCA Civ 1242 on the basis that the exposure levels were accepted as being below the levels set out in TDN13.
The claimant appealed on the basis that:
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the claimant's appeal and remitted the case back to HHJ Yelton to determine breach of duty in light of the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal. The guidance provided being:
In this case the Court of Appeal noted that from the mid-1960s it was widely recognised that low levels of exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma. The defendant would have known that the deceased was exposed to asbestos and that risk could have been reduced or avoided by either requiring the pipes to be cut outside or by providing the deceased with a mask.
The Court of Appeal endorsed LJ Hale's comments in Jeromson that where exposure is variable and the employer cannot know the extent of the same then consideration should be given to "the potential maximum exposure" and "only if he could be reassured that none of these employees would be sufficiently exposed to be at risk could he safely ignore it".
LJ Jackson was at pains to make clear that he did not consider Williams to have been incorrectly decided based on the evidence available to the court in that case.
It remains to be seen whether the defendant will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and/or the outcome of the reconsideration of the case by HHJ Yelton.
+44 (0)117 918 2122
+44 (0)113 251 4847
David Williams, David Johnson
Emma Fuller, Jade Batstone, Daniel Miller
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
Charlotte Le Maire
Peter Allchorne, David Williams
Sara May, Mark Ashley, Liam Riley
Thomas Jordan, Matthew Atwell
Thomas Jordan, Jonathan Mitchell
Andrea Ward, David Williams