Specialist Mesothelioma Solicitors Successfully Recover Compensation

Gerald Tyler, a multi award winning industrial Design Consultant, tragically died at the age of 60 in April 2004 of the asbestos related disease, mesothelioma. 

Up until October 2003, Gerald Tyler worked as a Design Consultant.  He had in fact been an Industrial Designer and Consultant from 1969 onwards.  He was one of a highly talented group of experts who were brought in to aid the industrialisation of Ireland in the 1970’s.  For many years prior to his death, he had provided consultancy services to many organisations, most notably The World Bank, departing his knowledge and expertise for the benefit of developing countries like Zimbabwe, Ghana and the Philippines.  He was a pioneering designer having won several international awards and had his designs exhibited internationally. 

Like many unfortunate individuals who fall victim to this disease, Gerald had only come across asbestos once and for a brief period.  Gerald’s story was a touching and humane one.  He met his first wife to be on a train journey to Germany.  He wanted to spend more time with her before starting college so he decided to move to Reading, to her home town, for the summer vacation of 1964 before their respective colleges started.  Like many students he took a summer vacation job.  Gerald’s summer vacation job was with a contractor working for 4 months at the local Reading Power Station, Earley Power Station.  A new section was being built and commissioned.  It was during this period that he worked as a labourer, insulating turbines and pipe work with asbestos for a very short period of 4 months.  Almost 40 years later, an individual who was admired locally and internationally for his work, his vision and ambition, slowly succumbed to this disease and died leaving a wife and 2 adult children. 

When Mrs Tyler came to our firm we had no idea where Gerald Tyler had been exposed.  We did not have a statement from Gerald.  The only evidence that we had of his exposure were brief 1 or 2 line remarks made by his doctors in his medical records.  Slowly we began to piece together his life after speaking to his family members and his work colleagues. Out of the blue we were contacted by an 84 year old who had spent the vast majority of his employment at Earley Power Station.  It was this man who was able to shed light on the work that went on at Earley Power Station in 1964. 

A case was built up against the occupiers of Earley Power Station, the Central Electricity Generating Board. We could not sue Mr Tyler’s employers because we did not know who their employer’s liability insurers were as the employer had gone out of business many years ago.  Proceedings were issued in London against the CEGB.  The CEGB initially put up a fight and tried to deny liability, arguing that as an occupier they did not have a duty to Gerald Tyler.  However, we were able to persuade the court that the Defendant did not have any chance of defending the claim and judgment was quickly entered under the Mesothelioma Fast Track procedure.

It seemed as though all hurdles had been overcome in this case.  However, this was not so.  The only outstanding issue in the case was the financial value of the claim.  This proved to be the most difficult issue of all. 

The Claimant claimed the usual losses on behalf of the estate including compensation for Gerald’s pain and suffering, his loss of earnings, funeral expenses, medical expenses, the care and assistance Gerald required and his inability to do things around the house up until the date of death.  She also claimed damages on her own behalf as Gerald’s dependent for the loss of dependency on his income and for the loss of dependency on the things he did around the house. 

The one controversial issue in this case was the Claimant’s dependency on Gerald’s income.  Gerald Tyler had built up a design and consultancy service and carried work out internationally.  Our case was that Gerald would have continued to work in his business until the age of 75.  He would have worked up until the age of 72 full time and thereafter worked on a part time basis.  After reaching the age of 65 he would have been in receipt of pension income as well as income from his business.  We argued that the Claimant would have also retired when Gerald turned 75 and retired. 

The Defendant disputed this part of the Claimant’s claim, which was valued in excess of £300,000.00.  The Defendant made the usual arguments, arguing that the Gerald would not have worked up until the age of 75, despite the Claimant having evidence from an 84 year old consultant who was still working full time.  The Defendant’s main argument was the Claimant did not suffer a loss because she had inherited part of the capital value of the Deceased’s business and had inherited sums from the pension fund providers that extinguished her claim for dependency on the Deceased’s income.  The Defendants argued that the Claimant should give credit for the sums that she had received as a beneficiary of Gerald’s estate.

We were adamant that Claimant did not have to give any credit for the inheritance that she had received from the Deceased’s estate.  We argued that the Claimant should not give credit for the sums that she received from the liquidation of the consultancy service and she should not give credit for the capital sums that she had received from the Deceased’s pension policies.  The reason for this was that by virtue section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the Claimant or Widow does not have to give credit for sums received as a result of death.  We were adamant that we were correct.  The Defendant was adamant that their approach was the correct and just one. 

Our case was estimated at just over half a million pounds and the Defendant argued that our case was worth just £180,000.00. 

The Claimant and her legal advisors were prepared to take this matter all the way to an assessment of damages hearing to argue this before a High Court Judge. 

Eventually, the Defendant caved in and the matter settled 2 days before trial for just under £500,000.  The Claimant did not have to give credit of any of the sums that she received from the Deceased’s estate as beneficiary of his will. 

Gerald Tyler was a unique individual.  He had spent a large proportion of his life providing advice, offering his services and his expertise to local communities within his home country and to developing nations to increase their prosperity. It is evident from the newspaper articles and letters of condolences to his family that he made a mark on all those he came across.  He was a positive individual who despite his severe illness, remained optimistic and even when laid up in his hospital bed, was able to draw sketches of his surrounding landscape. He refused to be dragged down by this cruel disease.  He was truly a courageous man. 

Mrs Tyler’s thoughts on the case:-

I am greatly pleased at how the case was deftly handled by Fozia and her team.  It could have been a slow, painful and difficult process but Fozia did as much as she could extracting witnesses and case details without dragging me deep into the proceedings.  Emily, Duncan, Jane and Hugh, Gerald's children, ex-wife and brother, deserve recognition for the immense support they gave me after Gerald's death and in bringing this case. It wouldn’t have been possible to bring this claim without their assistance and support. With everyone’s support, I have been thankfully spared the emotional and psychological trauma that could have easily resulted.  I believe Fozia and her team have done my late husband and the great pain and suffering the disease had given him and ultimately causing his premature death a great honour and just recognition by winning the case.  I am highly confident that Fozia and her firm, John Pickering & Partners, will continue to successfully fight for the most unfortunate victims of asbestos-related exposure diseases.

Fozia Hussain
John Pickering and Partners LLP
20 Clare Road
Halifax, HX1 2HX

Tele: 01422 345535
E-mail: fh@johnpickering.co.uk