header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2007 / Colin Mccaul
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Pleural plaques are back

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Colin McCaul QC peers beneath the surface of Rothwell

The House of Lords gave its decision in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd and another and other appeals; Re Pleural Plaques Litigation [2007] UKHL 39, [2007] All ER (D) 224 (Oct) on 17 October 2007. Their lordships unanimously upheld the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal to the effect that pleural plaques—and, arguably, pleural thickening—do not constitute actionable damage. And that is that, you might think, after reading the reports in the media.

But news of the death of pleural plaques actions has been greatly exaggerated. Just as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2002] 3 All ER 305, where Lord Hutton’s deliberate throwaway line opened the door for defendants to argue that mesothelioma damages were apportionable, so too one must look to the subtext in Rothwell.

Lord Scott, in common with all of their lordships, found that the law of tort provides no remedy for those who have contracted pleural plaques as a result of exposure

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