Specialist asbestos lawyers? - you decide

Increasing numbers of law firms and claims management companies (sometimes known as "claims farmers") call themselves mesothelioma or asbestos claims experts. Often, they can only rely on limited experience of handling asbestos cases, or on having collected considerable numbers of clients by trawling for claims through advertising campaigns.

We have represented thousands of asbestos disease sufferers over a period of almost 30 years. We have represented people with mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases in most of the landmark asbestos test cases. We represented Alice Jefferson, a mesothelioma sufferer, whose illness and compensation claim against Cape Asbestos were featured in the important documentary "Alice: A Fight For Life". Shown by Yorkshire Television in July 1982, the programme was an important catalyst for legal change and public awareness of the plight of the victims of asbestos. Following Alice, a series of our cases have been taken to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, where much of the law that now determines asbestos cases has been decided.

Judge us for yourself from this list of some of our important cases:

Bradley v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd, [1989] AC 957 (HL). A case about the rights of disease sufferers to bring claims against insolvent former employers. The adverse judgment of the House of Lords resulted in Parliament introducing legislation to allow long-defunct companies to be resurrected in order to enable disease sufferers to claim damages from the employers' insurers. This case and the resulting change of law are the reason why it is now possible for claims for mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases to be successful, many years after an employing company has ceased to exist.

Margereson v J W Roberts Limited, [1996] PIQR 358 (CA). A Court of Appeal decision and the first legally binding case in England on liability for environmental asbestos exposure. Mrs Margereson's case was joined at a late stage by another claimant, June Hancock. The case established that J W Roberts, part of the Turner and Newall group of companies, was liable to pay compensation to asbestos disease sufferers who, as children, had played around an asbestos factory in Leeds. It set an important precedent about the date when asbestos manufacturers should have known the hazards of asbestos dust and should have started to take precautions for the health of the wider public.

Quinn v Ministry of Defence, [1997] EWCA Civ 2865. A challenge to Crown Immunity in claims for asbestos disease. Ronald Quinn had breathed in asbestos during service in the Royal Navy many years ago. In the early 1990s, he developed mesothelioma. The law allows service personnel to claim compensation for injury from the Ministry of Defence for injuries that happened in 1986 or later. The Court of Appeal ruled that mesothelioma caused by contact with asbestos dust before 1986 is still covered by the legal principle of "Crown Immunity" - the pre-1986 law that exempts the MoD from being sued - because it is the date of the contact with asbestos that counts, not the date when mesothelioma becomes apparent. A later case took the same point of law to the House of Lords - with the same result. This injustice, that denies compensation to ex-service personnel with mesothelioma, has still not been put right by Parliament.

Lubbe and others v Cape Plc, [2000] UKHL 41, [2000] 4 All ER 268 (HL). A multi-party action brought on behalf of South African asbestos disease sufferers, which established liability of an English parent company for a subsidiary based abroad. We acted on behalf of over 2,000 South African citizens and secured a substantial settlement after the House of Lords decided this legal principle. As a result of this case, parent companies in the UK will find it more difficult to avoid the consequences of exporting dangerous working practices to less regulated working environments abroad.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited, [2002] UKHL 22. A landmark judgment that restored the rights of mesothelioma sufferers and re-affirmed the legal principle of "joint and several" liability of defendants to pay compensation for mesothelioma. It defeated the so-called "single fibre" argument which, insurance companies argued, meant that mesothelioma sufferers exposed to asbestos from more than one period of employment or source could not recover any compensation, as it is not possible to identify which single asbestos fibre, or which group of asbestos fibres, caused their mesothelioma. We represented Mrs Fox and Mr Matthews, two of the three successful claimants. The stakes were high - if the case had been lost in the House of Lords, it would have ended compensation for most mesothelioma sufferers, at a stroke. Instead, sufferers in many subsequent compensation claims have been able to benefit from the Fairchild ruling. See "Rights of British mesothelioma victims restored"

Maguire v Harland and Wolff, [2005] EWCA Civ 1. This case was about the liability of an employer for mesothelioma, when the victim is not their employee, but a family member who has breathed in asbestos dust brought home on work clothes in the early 1960s. There had been a failed earlier attempt in 1987 (by other solicitors) to win compensation from a shipbuilding employer in this situation. In the claim we brought for Mrs Maguire, the High Court awarded her compensation because, the court ruled, her husband's employer, Merseyside shipbuilders Harland and Wolff, should have realised that she and the families of other workers were at risk from asbestos dust - because the dust levels were so high - and they should have prevented employees going home covered in asbestos. The Court of Appeal, by a slim majority of 2 to 1, reversed the High Court decision - but ignoring the wealth of information that was available to employers about asbestos hazards at the time of Mr Maguire's employment. The House of Lords refused us permission to take the case further - meaning in practice that many women with mesothelioma have been denied compensation for their illness. Most mesothelioma sufferers in this situation are women, who make up 300 out of the annual total of 1,900 UK mesothelioma cases annually.

Rothwell v Chemical Insulating Company Limited, [2006] EWCA Civ 27. This is a test case in which insurers are challenging the right to compensation for the asbestos related condition, pleural plaques. The High Court upheld entitlement to compensation, which the insurance industry had paid without question for over 20 years in similar cases. The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court ruling, by a majority of 2 to 1, meaning that, for the first time since pleural plaques claims were first made in the early 1980s, there is no entitlement to compensation at present. The case is to be heard by the House of Lords in summer 2007. We represent two of the claimants in the test case, Mr Mears and Mr Grieves. The case again shows the efforts the insurance industry will make to avoid paying asbestos compensation.

Rice and Thompson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, [2006] EWHC 1257 (QB). The High Court ruled in May 2006 (see "Dockers' asbestos victory") that the government had responsibiliy for the health and safety of dock workers under the control of dock labour boards at local ports, and that the boards and the government were not entitled to pass on all responsibility to the shipping companies that carried asbestos cargoes. The Department for Trade and Industry's appeal against the High court ruling was heard in January 2007 by the Court of Appeal, whose judgment is awaited. The decision could affect hundreds of dock workers who have, or will get, mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases. Many thousands of men were employed at ports in the National Dock Labour Board scheme, until the system was de-casualised in 1967. They are often unable to bring claims against ship owning and stevedoring companies, which no longer exist, and past insurance cannot be traced. They will be able to claim compensation from the government in future, if the Court of Appeal upholds the High Court decision.

Sylvia Barker v Corus UK Plc, [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 3 All ER 785 (HL). A decision about liability of defendants to pay full or partial damages in mesothelioma claims. The case highlighted the legal tactics of employers and insurers trying to cut back their compensation liabilities to mesothelioma sufferers, and prompted the amendment of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure full compensation for mesothelioma. We represented Mrs Barker, whose case had been successful in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, so we were dismayed that the House of Lords allowed the appeal by Corus, her late husband's former employer. There was widespread criticism of the Lords' decision that mesothelioma victims and their families were not entitled to full compensation unless they could trace and sue all of the employers responsible for their exposure to asbestos, or the employers' insurers. Claims being made now are the result of asbestos exposure many decades ago. Due to the latent nature of asbestos disease, by the time the illness comes to light, employers are often defunct and their insurers cannot be traced. The judgment would have reduced damages for mesothelioma substantially in many cases, had we and others not lobbied the government and MPs, calling for legislative change to reverse its effect. The government responded by introducing an amendment to the Compensation Act 2006, which as a bill was then proceeding through parliament, in an almost unprecedented constitutional intervention. The statutory provisions are particularly unusual because of their retrospective effect. We were pleased that Mrs Barker's case was, ultimately, the prompt for such important legislation that will benefit many mesothelioma sufferers.

Lords slash asbestos compensation"

"Barker v Corus UK Limited: how the House of Lords rewrote the law on compensation for mesothelioma"

"Asbestos sufferers welcome Blair pledge"

"New asbestos law 'will restore justice'"

"MPs to overturn asbestos ruling"

Click here for more information about mesothelioma and how mesothelioma claims work in practice.

Contact us to find out if you can claim for mesothelioma or other asbestos related conditions.