header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 November 2014 / Laura Trezise
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Exposing liability

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
tresize

Laura Trezise outlines a successful defence of an asbestos related claim pursued under the Occupiers Liability Act

In Macarthy (Executor of the Estate of Heward, deceased) v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWHC 3183 (QB), [2014] ALL ER (D) 105 (Oct), Mr Heward worked for a family business, DH Allan & Sons Ltd (the third party), initially as an employee and from 1981 as managing director. Their business was shop-fitting. The only alleged exposure to asbestos dust was while the deceased was working for DH Allan at stores owned and operated by Marks & Spencer plc. Mr Heward died of mesothelioma in 2009. A claim was pursued by his estate and that of his wife, alleging that such exposure had caused his death.

It was alleged that the deceased’s exposure had occurred during two distinct periods. In the first period, he worked as a joiner at the M&S store in York for three weeks in the summer of 1967. The deceased worked alongside specialist contractors, Darlington Insulation, who carried out installation of asbestos ceiling tiles.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll