0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

not all mesothelioma claims result in a payment

16 October 2014

The case of Macarthy v Marks & Spencer is a timely reminder that not all mesothelioma claims result in a payment.

The deceased worked for a shop fitting company between 1967 and 1990 and contracted mesothelioma. It was accepted that his asbestos exposure took place on the premises of M&S but that it did not exceed the relevant exposure limits at the time.

A distinction was made between the knowledge of the specialist contractors working on behalf of M&S and the knowledge of the retailer. Whilst it is reasonable to assume that specialist contractors were aware of the Asbestos Research Council guidance in 1967 as their operatives were using protective equipment and clothing, the same could not fix the retailer with the same knowledge.

This judgment is another reminder that all is not lost when faced with a claim based on asbestos exposure. A careful analysis of the evidence is required to assess whether the level of asbestos exposure gives rise to a foreseeable risk of injury having regard to the state of knowledge at the time of exposure.

related opinions

COVID-19 child protection practice - four months in - lessons learned so far

In June 2020 the University of Birmingham published a research briefing exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child protection practice.

View blog

“Caution” is now the watchword when it comes to directly awarding public sectors contracts

The judicial review proceedings brought by the Good Law Project against the Department of Health and Social Care in relation to the £108m contract the Department awarded for PPE in April are about to shine a light on Regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

View blog

Will there be a return of employment tribunal fees?

The Government is reportedly considering the reinstatement of tribunal fees in respect of employment claims.

View blog

Redundancy: competitive interview processes

In this case, the Respondent’s appeal was unsuccessful. In the first instance, the decision that it unfairly dismissed various claimants following the closure of the school where they worked. The Claimants were unsuccessful in applying for substantially similar positions at a new school that opened at the same site. Read more here.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up