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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll