Wed10182017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

MESOTHELIOMA CLAIMS: What is reasonable?

25 September 2017  

Philip Turton examines Bussey, Williams and the problem of low-level asbestos exposure

If, as seems likely, the recent decision in Bussey v Anglia Heating [2017] marks a fresh attack on Williams v University of Birmingham [2011], insurers and defendants’ legal representatives may have to prepare for a more difficult future in low-dose mesothelioma claims. While the decision itself favoured the defendant, HHJ Yelton, who tried the case as a High Court judge, expressly rejected the invitation of the claimant’s counsel not to follow Williams on the basis that, if that case had been wrongly decided by the Court of Appeal, it was a matter for them or for the Supreme Court to overturn it. It thus seems likely that the claimant will strive to renew his argument before a higher forum.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Abraham v G Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd & anor [2009] EWHC 1958 (QB)

    Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd (2017) unreported, EWHC, HHJ Yelton,12 May

    Hill v John Barnsley & Sons Ltd & ors [2013] EWHC 520 (QB).

    Maguire v Harland & Wolff plc & anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1

    Shell Tankers UK Ltd v Jeromson; Cherry Tree Machine Co Ltd v Dawson [2001] EWCA Civ 101

    Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolt & Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1776

    Williams v University of Birmingham & anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1242

Last modified on 25 September 2017