header-logo header-logo

Supreme Court extends mesothelioma protection

27 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A mesothelioma sufferer whose work as a lorry driver did not put him in direct contact with asbestos is entitled to compensation, the Supreme Court has held.

Percy McDonald, who died earlier this year, picked up deliveries of waste product from Battersea Power Station between 1954 and 1959, and visited areas of the plant affected by asbestos dust. National Grid Electricity, defending the claim, argued he was not employed by the site and his primary work did not involve direct contact with asbestos.

In a 3-2 majority decision, the court held that the occupier of the site was responsible for all workers on the site not just employees, under the Factories Act 1961, and that industry regulations apply to all factories using asbestos not just those involved in the asbestos industry, in McDonald v National Grid [2014] UKSC 53.

Alida Coates, partner at Irwin Mitchell, who acted for McDonald, says the decision extends the scope of the Factories Act, and makes it “perfectly clear that the occupiers of the factory building have responsibility for protecting people engaged in processes on their site, not just their direct employees”.

David Pugh, a partner at Keoghs and a member of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers' disease sector focus team, says: “This is clearly a very complex decision turning on highly technical interpretations of regulations written a long time ago.

“The judgment is very finely balanced, with a bare majority finding in the claimant's favour. The effect of the decision is to make employers (and their insurers) liable to pay damages even when they could not have foreseen that the claimants were being put at risk.

"The decision will make it harder for insurers to defend claims, especially those which come from asbestos exposure in the years before the dangers were fully appreciated. It is difficult to say just how many more claims insurers will face since some of the cases affected might not previously been brought.”

Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll