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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll