Louisa Saville was instructed by Mrs L following the death of her mother from mesothelioma aged 80. Her mother had suffered from debilitating pain which was inadequately controlled.

Upon investigation it was clear the deceased had no occupational asbestos exposure. However, Mrs L’s husband, the deceased’s son-in-law, recounted asbestos exposure in the course of his work at Adswood tip in Stockport between 1996 and 2004. Mr L described handling and disposing of asbestos waste at the local authority owned site. He came into contact with materials including corrugated asbestos sheets, asbestos lagging and asbestos insulation boards which had been left at the site by members of the public. He regularly had to pick up asbestos waste that had been dumped and place it inside the asbestos skip. Asbestos dust and fibres were released as he handled and broke up the asbestos materials which then transferred onto his clothing, skin and hair. In the evening he returned to his mother-in-law’s home where she shook out and washed his work clothing over a number of years.

The case was fiercely defended. Proceedings were issued in the High Court. Louisa was unable to trace any additional witnesses. The defendants produced two witnesses who challenged Mr L’s account, but there were inconsistencies with their evidence. The defendants argued that they had robust training and procedures in place relating to the handling and disposal of asbestos materials. They contended that if the asbestos exposure occurred as alleged, Mr L was acting outside of his training and that they were not vicariously liable for his actions.

Unusually, the defendants issued a court application to add Mr L to the case as a Part 20 Defendant, which meant that they could bring a counterclaim against him if they were found liable. They held him accountable for the deceased’s illness and death and as such argued he should contribute to any damages awarded.

Expert evidence was crucial in this case. Reports relating to the levels of asbestos exposure were obtained from leading Occupational Hygienists. Detailed calculations were carried out dealing with the likely dose of asbestos exposure the deceased had been subject to. Reports from eminent Consultant Respiratory Physicians were produced dealing with the causation of the mesothelioma.  

The defendants continued to defend the case and the matter was listed for a trial. A few days before the trial was due to commence the defendants instigated settlement negotiations. An agreement was reached three days before trial. Compensation was paid to Mrs L and the Part 20 proceedings against Mr L were discontinued.