header-logo header-logo

06 November 2014 / Laura Trezise
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Exposing liability

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

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