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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll