Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

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

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”


Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?


The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?


Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council


Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator


A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)


Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship


Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges


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