CURRENT UK ASBESTOS DEVELOPMENTS: COMPENSATION, MEDICALTREATMENT AND POLITICAL SUPPORT
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Presented at: International Asbestos Conference
Yokohoma, Japan, November 2007

1. Introduction
In 1899, a 33 year-old patient was admitted to a London hospital suffering frombreathlessness; within 14 months he was dead. The case of the unnamed patient, reported
to the British Parliament in 1906, was the world’s first asbestos-related death to be
officially documented. Other asbestos “firsts” which took place in Britain included:
•

•
•
•
•
•

warnings about the hazardous conditions found in asbestos factories were issued
by Factory Inspectors from the late 1890s; in 1899, the phrase, “injurious dust inasbestos works” appeared in an annual report by the Chief Inspector of Factories
for the woman’s branch;
the name “pulmonary asbestosis” was given to the fatal, non-tubercular, diffuse
pulmonary fibrosis disease which occurred in asbestos workers in 1927;
the first national asbestos regulations were enacted to protect workers byminimising the production of asbestos dust in 1931;
the recognition of asbestosis as a “prescribed disease” in 1931;
the link between asbestos exposure, smoking and lung cancer was established by
Dr. Richard Doll in 1955;
the link between mesothelioma and environmental asbestos exposure wasconfirmed in Drs. Newhouse and Thompson in 1965. 1

Given the knowledge which had been amassed in Britain in the 20th century, a logicalperson might have expected that preventing hazardous exposures and providing medicalcare and financial compensation for the asbestos-injured would have been regarded as toppriorities. He would have been wrong; harmful exposures continued at work, at home andin the environment. Today, asbestos remains the UK’s greatest single cause ofoccupational death.
In the last decade, progress has been made on issues affecting the lives of those
suffering from asbestos-related diseases in the UK; developments in the compensation
regime, the availability of medical treatment and the building of political support forasbestos victims form the basis of this paper.
2. Compensation
In the UK, compensation for asbestos-related diseases can be claimed under statefunded and private schemes.

12.1 Government Compensation
Since asbestosis became the first asbestos-related disease to be officially recognized as
an industrial disease (1931), sufferers have been able to claim government benefits.
Asbestos-Related Diseases 2
Diseases

Asbestosis
Diffuse pleural thickening
Lung cancer
Mesothelioma

CodeLatency

Discovery

Prescribed as an
Industrial Disease

D1
D9
D8
D3

15 years+
10 years +20 years+
30 years+

1924
1930s
1955
1960

1931
1995
1985
1966

Adapted by L. Kazan-Allen from table by Drs. G. Tweedale & P. Hansen

3

In the 1930s, benefits for asbestosis were disbursed under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act and it was rare for a claim to succeed. Nowadays, benefits for 5 prescribed asbestosrelated diseases are awarded by the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB)
Scheme (Appendix 1).
Number of Cases of IIDB Assessments for Prescribed Diseases
Year

D1

D3

D8

D9

Total

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

580
650
760
830
730

900
1170
1340
1540
1470

60
80
90
80
130

390
400
410
410
380

1930
2300
2600
2860
2710

Total 3550

6420

440

1990

12400

Compiled from data on IIDB website

While the number of assessments for asbestosis (D1) and mesothelioma (D3) haveincreased substantially in the last 5 years (25% and 63% respectively), there has been
little variation in the number of cases of diffuse pleural thickening (D9). During thisperiod, thousands of cases of asbestos-related lung cancer have gone unrecognized. 4 The
6,420 mesothelioma assessments should have been accompanied by, at the very least, an
equal number of lung cancer assessments; the fact that there were only 440, means that
6,000+ cases of lung cancer are missing from the system. 5
In April 2006, legislation was enacted by Parliament to address the under-recognitionof asbestos-related lung cancer as an industrial disease. Even in the absence of asbestosis,
asbestos-related lung cancer is now deemed to be a prescribed industrial disease in
specified categories of at-risk workers where there is evidence of substantial occupational
exposure. All asbestos-related lung cancer claimants are now assessed at 100%
disablement. 6 Cases of asbestosis with clinical evidence of interstitial pulmonary fibrosis
2and a history of substantial asbestos exposure are now recognized even if there is a lowlung burden of asbestos fibers.
The 1,540 mesotheliomas registered as prescribed diseases by the IIDB in 2005 does
not accurately reflect the true national incidence of this disease. Data from Cancer
Research UK and the HSE for the same period state there were 1,928 and 2,037
mesothelioma fatalities. 7 Although there are multiple factors which could explain thisdiscrepancy, at least some of the under-reporting could be accounted for by thosemesothelioma claimants who are ineligible for IIDB compensation such as the selfemployed or people with non-occupational exposure to asbestos. Judging by thesefigures, there could be 388-497 of them every year.

Source: HSE website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/mesothelioma/scale.htm

Under proposals contained in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill which is
now going through Parliament, all sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma will receive
compensation from the state. A lump sum, amount as yet unknown, will be paid to themwithin six weeks. There are concerns that the payments will be insufficient to meet
victims’ needs but until we know the exact size and scope of the government provisions,further comment is just speculation. 8
2.2 Civil Litigation
Suing former employers for asbestos-related injuries is a relatively new phenomenon in
the UK; in 1994, researcher Tom Durkin identified a vast pool of uncompensatedasbestos victims. Since then, many things have changed. Asbestos victims and theirfamilies are now more inclined to resort to civil litigation to obtain compensation for3asbestos diseases. There are many reasons why the number of asbestos personal injury
cases has risen:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

there are more asbestos victims in the UK;
more patients with asbestos-related diseases are being accurately diagnosed;
doctors, nurses and social workers are becoming aware that these patients havethe right to claim compensation and are passing this information on;
the removal of restrictions on solicitors’ advertising and the advent of ‘no win-nofee’ increases access to legal representation;
the adoption of a more proactive attitude by some UK solicitors is stimulating thefiling of legitimate claims;
public awareness of the link between asbestos exposure and the incidence ofdisease has been increased through media campaigns and educational seminars
run by the Health and Safety Executive and trade unions;the number of regional asbestos victim support groups increased dramaticallyduring the 1990s with lottery money and donations being used to hire full-timeworkers at several groups;
telephone help-lines run by victim support groups, trade unions, solicitors andcancer charities such as Mesothelioma UK have raised awareness of legal redressfor asbestos injury cases.

The aim of English law is to replace the financial loss experienced by a claimant due tohis illness. Added to these sums is payment to claimants for pain, suffering and loss ofamenity. The latest Judicial Studies Board Guideline rates for pain and suffering alone
are:
Sterling
US Dollars
Japanese Yen
Mesothelioma
Lung cancer
Asbestosis
Pleural thickening£47,850-£74,300£45,800-£58,500£28,000-£61,500£22,400-£45,800

97,474-151,356
93,300-119,165
57,045-125,296
45,638-93,313

11.4m-17.8m
11m-14m
6.7-14.7m
5.3m-11m

The variations are affected by factors such as the duration of the illness, severity ofsymptoms and age of the sufferer. The total size of court-awarded compensation
packages is largely dependent on the age and financial circumstances of claimants withasbestos-related diseases. For mesothelioma and lung cancer plaintiffs over retirement
age and who are in receipt of average pensions, awards can range from £70,000-£150,000($142,818/ 16.6m JPY- $306,203/ 35.6m JPY) with £100,000 ($204,135/ 23.7m JPY)
being the average. However, for younger victims, who are still in full time employment
and with private or occupational pension schemes awards routinely exceed £200,000($408,270/ 47.4m JPY).
Although the sizes of asbestos settlements do not seem to have risen appreciably in thelast 10 years, the speed with which cases are processed has improved dramatically. Manymesothelioma cases are now settled within five to six months; it is rare, but possible, forcases to settle sooner. While the vast majority of cases settle out of court, somedefendants persist in waiting until the last minute before making reasonable offers.

4

Since 2006, measures to remove procedural blockages which delayed cases being
resolved have been adopted; these include the:
•
•
•

•
•

enactment of the Compensation Act 2006, which holds all negligent employers jointly
and severally liable;
implementation in July 2006 of a new protocol by HM Revenue and Customs for
tracing employers’ records in 10 working days as compared to up to 30 days
previously;
Compensation Act (Contribution for Mesothelioma Claims) Regulations 2006 underwhich the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will repay sums advanced by acompany or insurer to a mesothelioma claimant in circumstances where contributions
from other guilty parties is not forthcoming;
implementation of an improved insurance tracing scheme; since February 2007, a
dedicated member of the Association of British Insurers has been dealing withenquiries under a more stringent timetable;
introduction of a new pre-action mesothelioma protocol for civil actions to speed up
claims handling through faster information exchange, earlier admissions of liability,
strict deadlines, expedited payment of compensation awards and interim payments
once liability and causation have been established.

SPECIALIST COURT
Since 2002, the Queen’s Bench Division’s “fast track” asbestos disease list, mainly
used for mesothelioma cases, has transformed the process of bringing a personal injury
claim for fatal asbestos diseases in England. Under the guidance of Master Steven
Whitaker, the London-based judicial service at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) iscurrently dealing with 600 cases a year from all over England and Wales. Early
admission of liability and the use of joint expert witnesses have reduced litigation costs
and expedited the settlement of cases. “Defendants are expected,” Master Whitaker says
“to demonstrate to me that they have a real prospect of success on at least one liability
issue before I will allow a liability trial.” Tightly timetabled procedures, the use of
telephone and email for case management conferences and applications have increased
the certainty of results and cut costs for both sides.
Streamlined judicial procedures combined with an increase in early diagnosis ofasbestos-related disease have led to more live claims being issued. Ninety-seven per centof mesothelioma claims are settled before they reach trial at the RCJ; only 1% of thesecases require assessment hearings. The head of asbestos policy for one major UK law
firm with offices throughout the country confirms that all its mesothelioma claims aresent to the RCJ; he reports:“A significant number of mesothelioma cases settle within a matter of weeks ofcommencement of proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice. The show cause
hearing before Master Whitaker is a strong incentive to many experienced5defendants’ solicitors to focus on the need to settle cases quickly on reasonable
terms.”
The court is on target to achieve its goals of settling claims for living plaintiffs withinfour months from issue of the claim form and for their surviving relatives within sevenmonths.
From proceedings being issued, defendants have four weeks to submit their defence;
the first case management conference takes place two weeks later. An order for aninterim payment of £47,000 ($95,815/ $11.2m) is usually made by Master Whitaker once
judgment is entered against a defendant; 9 this usually happens at the first casemanagement conference, 6 weeks after proceedings begin.
A selection of recent and test cases involving mesothelioma are discussed in Appendix
3.
2.3 Retaliation by Asbestos Defendants
As the asbestos epidemic has escalated, UK plc has taken evasive action to escapemounting liabilities. A coordinated strategy was developed by asbestos defendants andtheir insurers to challenge judicial precedents:
1. Mesothelioma: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, defendants argued
successfully at the High Court and Court of Appeal that in cases where amesothelioma plaintiff had experienced multiple hazardous exposures the sourceof the fiber or fibers responsible for the malignant transformation of the pleuralcell could not be proved. On June 22, 2002, the House of Lords reversed thesejudgments and awarded full compensation to each of the 3 claimants.
2. Mesothelioma: Barker v. Corus, the House of Lords (2006) ruled that damages
for mesothelioma were to be apportioned among those guilty of hazardous
exposures. This decision was reversed within two months by an Act of Parliament
which re-established the concept of joint and several liability for mesothelioma
litigants. Had Parliament not acted, asbestos victims would have been deprived of
up to £15 million/year.
3. Mesothelioma: in Maguire v. Harland & Wolff, the Court of Appeal (2005)
reversed the High Court decision (2004) and found that a wife who was exposed
to asbestos on her husband’s work clothes could not claim compensation from hisformer employer. Had shipyard worker Mr. Maguire gotten ill, his claim would
have succeeded as the company had a duty of care to its workers; during the early
1960s, this duty did not extend to wives who washed their work clothes.
4. Pleural plaques: Rothwell v. Chemical & Insulating Co. Ltd. Unless reversed by
the House of Lords, the decision handed down by the Court of Appeal on January
26, 2006 could end compensation for pleural plaques thereby preventing up to
100,000 claims and saving defendants such as Norwich Union, Zurich Financial
Services, Royal & SunAlliance and Lloyd’s of London £1-£1.4 billion.

65. Lung cancer: Beryl Badger v. the Ministry of Defence, High Court verdict(2005), damages reduced by 20% due to deceased’s smoking habit whichconstituted, so the judge decided, contributory negligence.
3. Medical Treatment
In the UK, mesothelioma is the most rapidly increasing of all cancers in women and the
3rd highest in men. In 2005, the latest year for which data is available, there were 2,037
mesothelioma deaths. As bad as things are now, they will get worse. Epidemiologists
predict that by 2050, the cumulative British mesothelioma death toll will reach 90,000;
65,000 of these fatalities will occur after 2001. The political establishment and the
medical community were slow to react to the emergence of this national epidemic.
Reflecting the almost universal unwillingness to engage with this issue, mmesothelioma
was nicknamed the “Cinderella cancer.”
Medical treatment for mesothelioma developed in an ad hoc way throughout thecountry. In 2003, UK medical specialists detailed the inadequacy of current diagnostic
and treatment protocols at a meeting in the House of Commons; they reported that:
•
•
•
•

•

most mesothelioma patients never saw a mesothelioma specialist doctor;
mesothelioma patients were frequently told: “there’s nothing we can do for you;”few patients were offered chemotherapy even though new protocols have beeneffective at relieving symptoms and prolonging life;
although surgery to remove the affected lung could sometimes prolong life andimprove the quality of life, there were only ten thoracic surgeons in the UK who
could perform this operation; these operations were further hindered by a lack of
NHS surgical beds, operating time, equipment and nurses;
there was little funding for mesothelioma research in the UK.

After a nationwide campaign by asbestos victims groups, trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, cancer charities, public health campaigners and politicians,
the government adopted a National Mesothelioma Framework earlier this year (2007).
This voluntary service guidance for the National Health Service (NHS) covers a range ofissues including early diagnosis, treatment options, supportive and palliative care, the roleof clinical nurse specialists, research, information, benefits and compensation. The overriding purpose of this initiative is to improve the quality of care and outcomes for all UK
patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.
CASE STUDY
Clinical trials have shown that Alimta (Pemetrexed disodium) is effective in prolonging
life and alleviating distressing symptoms in people suffering from malignant pleural
mesothelioma. Treatment with Alimta and Cisplatin is regarded as the “gold-standard”
with a significantly better response rate than chemotherapy with Gemcitabine andCisplatin or Cisplatin on its own.

7

For three years, patients and their families have remained in limbo as Alimta, the only
licensed chemotherapy for treatment of malignant mesothelioma under the National
Health Service, has been under review by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence(NICE). 10 During this time, a postcode lottery has existed with mesothelioma patients in
London and Norwich being denied treatment while those in Manchester and Swansea
have been prescribed the drug; in Scotland all suitable patients are treated with Alimta. A
resolution of this situation is not expected for some months. While NICE has been
considering this issue, thousands of mesothelioma patients have died.
4. Agents for Change
4.1 Asbestos Victim Support Groups, Asbestos Forum
During the 1990s, social mobilization of asbestos victims increased in England; groups
were started in Cheshire, Clydebank, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Plymouth andSheffield; other groups operate in Scotland and Wales. In July 2005, nine asbestos
victims’ groups from the North of England and Wales formed a campaigning body called
The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum (the Forum). Forum members work to
improve the range of services and advice available to victims and offer victims and theirrelatives the opportunity to share their experiences and provide mutual support. Thisumbrella group is now widely regarded by the media as the national body speaking on
behalf of asbestos victims.
4.2 Asbestos Sub-Committee of The All Party Parliamentary Occupational Safety and
Health GroupIn 2000, asbestos victims’ groups initiated discussions with trade unions and Membersof Parliament (MPs) about the possibility of forming an Asbestos Sub-Committee of anestablished Parliamentary Group which would raise the profile of issues affecting thedaily lives of asbestos victims and their families.
Since its formation in 2000, the sub-committee has, on average, had 3 working
meetings a year; at these sessions procedural issues such as double diagnosis of
mesothelioma victims, delays in obtaining state benefits, inequitable government
regulations and lack of funding for the research and treatment of asbestos-related diseases
are raised. MPs discuss ways to address these grievances, often deciding to bring theissue up with relevant Ministers or civil servants. Through this process many issues havebeen resolved. The sub-committee was pivotal in raising awareness of the potential
impact of the inequitable decision by the House of Lords decision in the Fairchild case.
Working closely with the Asbestos Forum, trade unions, NGOs and others a nationwide
campaign was spectacularly successful when, within less than 8 weeks, Parliament acted
to restore victims’ rights. Such a quick response by Parliament to a Law Lords’ decision
was virtually unheard of.
The sub-committee holds an annual asbestos seminar during which MPs are updated on
medical, legal, environmental, corporate and political news from around the world.
4.3 Mesothelioma UK

8In May 2004, a new charity was set up called: Mesothelioma UK. Its free telephone
helpline has dealt with a total of 2,200 calls and its user-friendly website receives 1,000
hits a month. 11 Mesothelioma UK, headed by Consultant Nurse Liz Darlison, provides
access to timely, accurate and relevant advice for patients, carers and health care
professionals. Mesothelioma UK has held annual Patient/Carer Days in 2006 & 2007,
both of which were well-attended. As well as hearing presentations from leading medical
experts, delegates are able to engage in one to one discussions with experts on a range ofissues.
4.4 Mesothelioma Charities
The June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund 12 and the Mick Knighton
Mesothelioma Research Fund 13 are charities set up in memory of mesothelioma victims.
Between them, they have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for UK research
projects. Both groups take an active role in lobbying for improvements to the UK
mesothelioma regime.
4.5 Action Mesothelioma Day
The first Action Mesothelioma Day (AMD) was held on February 27, 2006 to raiseawareness of the mesothelioma epidemic; asbestos victims’ groups, trade unions andNGOs in Scotland and England coordinated a range of events including conferences,
workshops, memorial services, balloon rallies and demonstrations. A Charter of Rights
for Mesothelioma Victims was one of the main demands made; the Charter was included
on a petition signed by 14,000 people which was delivered by MPs to 10 Downing Street.
Other events on the day included a reception at Westminster for MPs and the tabling of.
Early Day Motion 1696: Action Mesothelioma Day.
On the second AMD (February 27, 2007), meetings, rallies, balloon releases andmemorial services took place in regional asbestos hotspots; 14 a Parliamentary event was
hosted in Westminster by MP David Hamilton, a member of the House of Commons All
Party Asbestos Sub-Committee. 15 To compliment these activities, an 8 minute video clip
entitled Mesothelioma – The Human Face of an Asbestos Epidemic was shown on BBC
city-center TV screens throughout February 27. 16 To mark Action Mesothelioma Day,
Health Minister Rosie Winterton announced the publication of a National Mesothelioma
Framework 17 at an event held on Gateshead Millennium Bridge organized by the Mick
Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, an asbestos victims’ support group in
Newcastle.
5. Concluding Thoughts
Despite a hostile campaign by asbestos defendants and their insurers, improvements
have been achieved for thousands of UK asbestos victims. Coordinated initiatives byasbestos victims’ groups, trade unions, campaigners, plaintiffs’ law firms, politicians,
NGOs and charities have raised the profile of the asbestos epidemic and brought pressure
to bear on politicians to take steps to ensure that up-to-date medical treatment andequitable financial compensation are to the injured.

910Appendix 1
The Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) Scheme
The Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) Scheme provides non-contributory,
no-fault weekly benefits for disablement due to prescribed asbestos diseases that arise
during employment (not self-employment); victims of take-home exposure (such as
children exposed to asbestos dust on their Father’s work clothes), para-occupational
exposure (such as wives who washed asbestos-contaminated clothing) or environmental
exposure are not eligible. Unlike state compensation schemes in most other countries,
IIDB payments are not related to earnings; awards are made according to a scale ofdisablement of 1-100% with a maximum weekly payment of £131.10 ($267.60/ 30,973
JPY).
IIDB is tax-free and is administered by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
Recipients of IIDB may also be eligible for special tax-free allowances:•••

Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA)
Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance (ESDA)
Reduced Earnings Allowance (only for disablement prior to 1.10.1990).

Other income-related state benefits which might be claimed in some circumstances are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Statutory Sick Pay
Incapacity Benefit
Disability Allowance
Attendance Allowance
Carers Allowance
Pension Credit
Income Support
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Bereavement Benefits.

Eligible sufferers can also apply for tax-free payments under other headings: (1)Disability and Living Allowance (2) Attendance Allowance; these awards overlap with
CAA and ESDA respectively.
For exposure to asbestos prior to July 5, 1948 other schemes under which asbestos
sufferers might claim are: the Workers’ Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme and
the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme. Some asbestosrelated disease sufferers may also qualify for a lump sum payment £17,000 ($34,704/
4,017,885 JPY) on average under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act
1979. Applicants with prescribed diseases whose asbestos exposure took place in the
Armed Forces may make a claim for a war pension.

11

Appendix 2
Typical Timetable for a Hypothetical Mesothelioma Case
Activity

Date

Interview with new client

September 3, 2006

Request medical reports / employment
history

September 17-October 1

Receive employment history / write to
known defendants

September 17-October 1

Receive medical reports / instruct
medical experts

October 3-17

In the meantime gather financial
Information / pension or income details

by November 1

Receive medical report

October 17-31

Complete schedule and serve

November 12-26

If no offer received in 21 days,
serve proceedings

December 19

Defence arrives

January 16, 2007

Expedited fast-track hearing (casemanagement conference) before
Master Steven Whitaker 18 weeks
into the case

January 16, 2007

Judgement entered, interim payment of£47,000

January 30, 2007

Comments:
The five month timeline projected for this case is about average in the experience of UK
asbestos practitioners. Some cases settle in 3 months but that is rare; these would usually
be cases with only one defendant and in industries, such as the power and shipbuilding
industries, where there are well-known histories of hazardous exposure. The vast
majority of cases settle out of court.

12Appendix 3
Recent and Landmark Mesothelioma Cases
Occupational Exposure
Mr. P. closely supervised the dumping of waste at a tip (1984-1994); up to 400 lorryloads of asbestos-containing waste were dumped here every month. The case settled
within 10 months for £200,000 ($408,000/ 47.4m JPY); the final award included
financial provision for caring for Mr. P’s 31 year old disabled daughter).
Mr. R. worked as an electrician for 2 construction companies; he experienced various
hazardous exposures in the south east of England at MoD buildings and a hospital. He
was diagnosed aged 49. The claim settled for £269,000 ($548,825/ 63.8m JPY) two
weeks before trial.
Mr. A worked as a plumber from 1961-2000; he died in 2003. As his former employer
denied negligence, the case proceeded to trial despite evidence from experts andwitnesses. After a day’s court hearing, the company settled the case for £171,000($348,910/ 40.5m JPY).
Mr. M died at 58 in 2002 having worked in the Belfast shipyard for Harland and Wolff
from 1959-64. After denying liability, Harland & Wolff agreed to pay £375,000($765,090/ 88.9m JPY) on May 23, 2007; this is thought to be the highest mesothelioma
settlement ever reached in Northern Ireland.
Para-occupational Exposure
Mrs. C, in her 60s, was exposed to asbestos brought home on her son’s overalls; he had
worked for Newham Borough Council as an apprentice plumber from 1980-85. During
his employment, he had stripped asbestos from pipe work and crawled along spaces
which contained asbestos-covered pipe work. The case settled in 2007 for an undisclosed
sum.
Take-home Exposure
Barry Welch died at 32 years old in April 2005; his step-father’s former employer was
sued for having allowed their employee to take home asbestos on his work clothes. In
February 2007, insurers agreed to pay £201,000 ($410,131/ 47.6m JPY).
Michelle Campbell, who was diagnosed in January 2006, was exposed to asbestos on her
grandfather’s work clothes when she was a child. In September 2006, she became thefirst grandchild to obtain compensation for an asbestos-related disease in England. As her
grandfather worked at the Portsmouth dockyard, the case was brought against the
Ministry of Defence (MoD) which made an out-of-court offer of £145,000 ($295,860/
34.4m JPY).

13

Debbie Brewer, age 47 years, claimed compensation from the MoD for exposure toasbestos brought home on her father’s work clothes. Philip Northmore worked as anasbestos lagger on Royal Navy ships during the 1960s at Devonport dockyard. The casewas settled in 2007 by a payment of £75,000 ($153,034/ 17.8m JPY).
Environmental/Neighborhood Exposure
The landmark decision for this type of exposure was handed down in October, 1995 in
the case of Hancock and Margereson vs. J.W. Roberts Ltd., a fully-owned subsidiary of
the UK’s major asbestos group: T&N plc. June Hancock, who contracted mesothelioma
having lived and played near the asbestos textile factory in Armley, Leeds, received
damages of £65,000 ($132,621/ 15.4m JPY); the widow of mesothelioma victim Eric
Margereson received £50,000 ($102,016/ 11.9m JPY).

1

The 1965 paper by Newhouse and Thompson appeared in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine; it
stated that: “among those with no evidence of occupational or domestic exposure, 30.6% of themesothelioma patients…lived within half a mile of an industry factory.” The authors concluded that “there
seems little doubt that the risk of mesothelioma may arise from both occupational and domestic exposure toasbestos.”2
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/db1/appendix/appendix1.asp
3
Tweedale G, Hansen P. Protecting the Workers: The Medical Board and the Asbestos Industry, 1930s1960s. Medical History 1998. 42; 439-457
4
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/lungcan.htm
5
According to government sources, there is 1:1 or 1:2 cases of mesothelioma for each lung cancer (D8);
the 6,420 mesotheliomas assessed over this period should be accompanied by 6,420-12,840 assessments forasbestos-related lung cancer.
6
Kazan-Allen L. Recognition of Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer. British Asbestos Newsletter. Issue 59,
Summer 2005. Weblink: http://www.lkaz.demon.co.uk
7
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/trends/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/meso01.htm
8
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2007/mar/hsc023-130307.asp
9If, at the first case management conference, the defendants admit negligent exposure and causation in
their defence or, as happens more often, are instructed not to resist judgement being entered against themby Master Whitaker, they are ordered to make an interim payment. If the defendants complain that theyshould be allowed to defend the claim (e.g. if there is some dispute over the correct defendant’s identity or
if evidence on exposure is slight), then they will occasionally be given more time to “show cause” whyjudgment should not be entered. If they then do nothing, judgement is deemed to have been entered afterthat later date. If they do respond, then the case management conference is relisted to hear full argumentson liability or alternatively directions are given to deal with the issue at trial (along with quantum).
10
http://www.nice.org.uk/
11
www.mesothelioma.uk.com
12
http://www.junehancockfund.org/
13
http://mickknightonmesorf.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/
14

AMD events took place in: Barking, Chesterfield, Crewe, Doncaster, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London,
Manchester, Newcastle, Rochester, Rotherham and Sheffield.
15
http://www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk/Frames/f_lka_uk_asb_plague.htm
16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLTDknLVm4A

14