Latest Keoghs Insight

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Grant v Secretary of State for Transport: Guidance on Mesothelioma quantum

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Blake v Croasdale & esure [2017] EWHC 1336 (QB)

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Asymptomatic Silicosis Update: Feeney v Tarmac Sandstone Limited and one other

Client Alerts||26/06/2017

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd

Client Alerts||23/06/2017

Breaking News: Scottish Parliament passes Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Bill

Client Alerts||22/06/2017

Queen's Speech 2017

Client Alerts||21/06/2017

Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill

Client Alerts||02/06/2017

Keoghs research warns of large rise in opportunistic insurance fraud

News And Events||17/07/2017

Keoghs launches 2017 apprenticeship programme

News And Events||09/06/2017

Scotland team expands at Keoghs one month after Glasgow office unveiled

News And Events||01/06/2017

Keoghs proud to support Bolton Wanderers Community Trust

News And Events||26/04/2017

Keoghs accelerates growth with move into Scotland

News And Events||19/04/2017

Keoghs sign up to new Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) affiliate membership

News And Events||05/04/2017

Keoghs celebrates award for fledgling apprenticeship scheme

News And Events||10/03/2017

Keoghs help enforce eight year bankruptcy for fraudster after tort of deceit action

News And Events||09/03/2017

Credit hire: A strategic approach


Preserving insurers’ recovery rights following escape of water


Who is David Lidington?


Jackson v The Sugababes? Don’t delay… push the button!


Examining a Court of Appeal decision concerning the adequacy of Local Authority systems


Jumping for joy?


Keoghs Casebook – Fraud Analysis April ‘17


Looking to the future: Trends in Disease - Dupuytren’s Contracture


Credit Hire Aware 12


Costs Aware Issue 3


Property Aware 5


Credit Hire Aware 11


Fraud Aware 5


Costs Aware 2


Disease Aware 8


Credit Hire Aware 10


Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.


David Pugh

David Pugh


T: 0247 665 8274

Bussey v Anglia Heating - Mesothelioma and Minimal Exposure: Williams upheld - for now

Client Alerts||18/05/2017

The High Court has rejected an attempt to circumvent the Court of Appeal’s decision in Williams*. Defendants can continue to resist low exposure asbestos claims from the 1960’s and early 1970’s - but this is a moving target. This decision will not be the last word.

The background

The deceased was employed between 1965 and 1968. He cut cement pipes made with chrysotile. He also used asbestos rope which contained amosite. There was some dispute between the experts as to the likely asbestos exposure. The judge found that the levels of exposure were ‘very limited in time’ and ‘low level’.  He found specifically that the exposure would have been below the levels set out in Techical Data Note (TDN) 13: Standards for Asbestos Dust Concentration for Use with the Asbestos Regulations 1969.

The TDN 13 guidance was issued by the HSE in 1970 to accompany the 1969 Asbestos Regulations. It set out levels of exposure which would be expected to lead to prosecution. In the 2011 Williams case the Court of Appeal found that TDN 13 should be seen as the best guide to what would have been regarded as acceptable levels of asbestos exposure. If they were not exceeded the defendant would have had no foresight of harm and would not be in breach of duty.

In Bussey the deceased’s exposure predated TDN 13 - but the Judge said it would be ‘perverse’ to think that standards would have relaxed over that time. The claimant argued that Williams was wrongly decided. She said that earlier authorities had set out a more stringent test and the Court of Appeal did not seem to have been taken through these cases. Their decision was therefore a legal error.

The Judge in Bussey did not address the underlying issues about the correct test to apply.

He said that any argument that the Court of Appeal was wrong in Williams could only be addressed by that Court. He was bound by it and found for the defendant.
The issues in Bussey will largely be relevant to exposure between 1965 and 1976. In 1965 knowledge of the potential dangers of low level exposure and mesothelioma became ‘public’. In 1976 the HSE issued fresh guidance (EH10) saying that asbestos exposure should be reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable. The Williams decision will not help defendants after that point.

Whether this claimant or another continues this challenge remains to be seen. Many observers believe that Williams has had a significant dampening effect on claim numbers. Using TDN 13 as a guide to reasonable foresight of harm in the 1960’s and 1970’s is certainly questionable. These standards did not purport to be a guarantee of safety. They were also based on the risks of asbestosis, not mesothelioma and on the use of chrysotile only. Their status as a sole litmus test of foreseeability does seem flawed.

The implications

Where this might lead is an open question - which invokes other questions. What was the true state of reasonable knowledge of SME employers in, say, 1968? How would a small plumbing business even know about TDN 13? Claimants still carry the burden of proof, even in mesothelioma claims. Setting aside TDN 13 might not necessarily turn out to the claimants’ advantage.

* Williams v University of Birmingham & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011