The defendant had appealed against the award of damages after alleged exposure of the claimant to airborne asbestos whilst a schoolchild. The Council submitted that the judge’s findings of fact were, in enough respects to undermine his conclusion, not supported by the evidence.
Held: The authority’s appeal failed. There was no discernible error either in the judge’s approach to the question whether the claimant’s exposure had been minimal or material, or in his resolution of the question. It has to be remembered that where asbestos is involved, all exposure constitutes a risk of harm. So long as there was evidence capable of justifying his findings, the conclusion that avoidable exposure in the school had made a material contribution to the risk and therefore to the eventual materialisation of the claimant’s illness was an entirely reasonable one.
Judges:
Ward, Sedley, Smith LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 1211, [2010] ELR 227
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380328
