header-logo header-logo

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

Supreme Court extends mesothelioma protection

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll