In this blog post, John-Paul Swoboda considers the recent case of Cuthbert, in which Michael Rawlinson KC, Max Archer and Jessica Franklin acted for the Appellant, the widow of Mr Derek Barry Cuthbert and executrix of his estate. As I settled down last Saturday evening to read the judgments in this case I did not think I’d be up until 1am. But I was. That is not only because of the length of the judgment but also because of its content. The Court of Appeal has re-cast/re-stated (depending on your point of view) the foreseeability requirements for pre 1965 exposure and may also have re-ignited ..read more

In this article Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas considers the judgment of HHJ Lickley KC in Ness v Carillion Capital Projects Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1219 (KB). Ness was a successful fatal mesothelioma claim. The Issues The central issues were: (1) did the deceased work with asbestos millboard? (2) even if he did not work with asbestos millboard was his exposure from asbestos cement sufficient to establish breach of duty where the exposure was over 10 to 14 days between 1966 and 1968? The defendant’s case was that Mr Harrison’s (‘the deceased’) exposure from asbestos cement was ..read more

This blog post was written by Rebecca Henshaw. Just before Christmas, the Court of Appeal handed down useful guidance on two issues which will be of interest to practitioners who regularly deal with grants of probate and letters of administration, in both industrial disease settings and elsewhere. The Court was asked to determine both 1) the standing of foreign executors and 2) the role of CPR 3.10 in correcting claims which have been issued by representatives with no standing.  The background to this case was that the Deceased was domiciled in South Wales, Australia. His widow was appoin ..read more

In this article, pupil Jake Loomes looks at the recent case of Cuthbert in which Max Archer acted for the Claimant, Jennifer Cuthbert, the widow of Mr Derek Barry Cuthbert and executrix of his estate. Background Mr Cuthbert was employed by the defendant between 1956 and 1959 over which period he was engaged in the construction of the Queenswood School in Hertfordshire. Through this work he was exposed to asbestos dust from the cutting of asbestos insulation boards in his vicinity and from his sweeping up of the said dust. Sadly, on the 5 April 2022, Mr Cuthbert died as a result of his mesothel ..read more

This blog post was written by Dr David Sharpe KC and Corinne Novell. Introduction The decision concerns an unsuccessful claim for secondary exposure to asbestos, which the plaintiff alleges occurred in his family home for the period of 1951 to 1974, during which the plaintiff’s father worked as a pipe lagger for the defendants on a Belfast shipyard. The plaintiff alleges that this exposure caused him to develop bilateral pleural plaques, a dose related condition dependent on cumulative exposure. By the time of trial, the claim was only being pursued against the first and third defendants. In e ..read more

This post was written by Mike Brace. A recent decision which demonstrates the dangers inherent in attempting to undermine an opponent’s expert evidence without serving your own or even requiring that the opposing expert attend  for cross examination. The Case. The claim was brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 in respect of the death of  Mr White from mesothelioma.  The Claimants, Mr White’s executors, alleged that he was exposed to asbestos whilst working at Sefton General Hospital Liverpool during 2 discrete periods: 1949 – 1960 (as a junior lab te ..read more

In this blog Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas considers the decision of HHJ Lickley KC in Bae Systems Marine Ltd v Alfa Laval Ltd [2022] EWHC 2686 (KB). Introduction The decision concerns an unsuccessful claim for contribution under s. 1(1) of The Civil Liability Act 1978, following the settlement of a claim for mesothelioma (‘the substantive action’), by the owners and operators of a dockyard. It is a salutary reminder of what any claimant in asbestos litigation must prove to succeed in a claim, particularly in the context of naval dockyard exposure. Summary The contribution claim was for £190,696.1 ..read more

This blog was written by Ivan Bowley who appeared for the successful Claimant. He is instructed by Tom Bradley of Simpsons Solicitors. A recent decision of the High Court considers whether the right to seek further damages under a provisional damages order passes to the injured victim’s estate on his death. Mr Hammacott developed asbestos related pleural plaques and minor asbestosis as a result of asbestos exposure sustained during various periods of employment with the defendants. In 1991 he issued a claim for provisional damages pursuant to section 32A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The imme ..read more

This blog is written by John-Paul Swoboda and Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas. John-Paul Swoboda successfully acted for the Claimant, instructed by Shaheen Mosquera of Fieldfisher, in Keegan v (1) Independent Insurance Company Ltd (2) Zurich Insurance PLC [2022] EWHC 1992 (QB). Keegan is the first case to go to trial, so far as we are aware, to consider the application of The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’) in the context of claims for mesothelioma. Regular readers of this blog will no doubt remember the case of Brooks (link to blog here) which considered the issue ..read more

The wait is over. After much hard work by 12KBW barristers, and in particular the general editors, Harry Steinberg QC, Michael Rawlinson QC, and James Beeton, Sweet & Maxwell have published the second edition of ‘Asbestos: Law & Litigation’. The new edition is essential reading for all those practicing in this area. It features key updates on damages in fatal asbestos disease claims, litigation concerning exposure in schools, costs and procedure, and much more. The book can be ordered online here ..read more