header-logo header-logo

13 January 2012 / Elizabeth Carley
Issue: 7496 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Divided loyalties?

Will natural sympathy for asbestos sufferers trump policy concerns? Elizabeth Carley reports

Asbestos litigation to date has tended to focus on injury to industrial workers, as it was in industrial settings that exposure was greatest. But much lower levels of exposure can cause injury or death. There is increasing potential for litigation arising from lower level exposure in non industrial settings, for example in schools. How will the courts grapple with this? The recent Court of Appeal decision in Williams v University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242, [2011] All ER (D) 25 (Nov) highlights some of the issues.

Williams

Williams concerned low level exposure to asbestos and whether reasonable foresight of harm is necessary for a finding of breach of duty. Mr Williams was a student at Birmingham University. In 1974 he undertook a series of physics experiments in a basement tunnel containing asbestos lagged pipes. At trial, the university accepted that Williams had been exposed to low levels of asbestos. They argued, however, that this exposure was not a breach of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll