Appeal on dust case

Exclusive by John d'Arcy



UCATT is to go to the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn a judgement that the union believes may put at risk all future claims for compensation for deaths caused by asbestos.

"We are going all the way on this one - up to the House of Lords, if necessary," said general secretary George Brumwell after the union's executive council authorised the appeal. The executive was acting on the legal advice of UCATT's solicitors, OH Parsons.

The case involved UCATT member Arthur Fairchild who died aged 61 in 1996 from mesothelioma caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibres.

His widow Judith Fairchild, supported by the union, sought compensation from Leeds City Council and Waddingtons on the grounds of their alleged breach of duty as owners of premises at which Arthur had worked as a joiner and where he had been exposed to substantial quantities of asbestos.

Exposure had occurred while the joiner was working for the council on renovation of its Meanwood swimming baths in 1962 and again, six years later, when converting a Waddingtons building in Leeds.

Both the city council and Waddingtons defended the action on the grounds that it could not be proved when the deceased had suffered the exposure that proved fatal.

Earlier this year, Justice Curtis found in favour of both defendants.

Solicitor Spencer Wood of OH Parsons said medical evidence indicated that it could be one asbestos fibre that causes mesothelioma, or several.

"The judge has come to the conclusion, certainly in this case, that we cannot prove which fibre caused the injury and therefore which defendant caused the injury," said Wood.

"The judge says that no matter how much we can prove that a defendant has increased the risk of the injury this is not the same as causing it. And therefore even if one defendant has set up 90% of the risk by exposing someone to 90% of the fibres, it has not caused the injury and therefore we would fail against it.

"If this analysis is correct, then the judgement means every single mesothelioma claim from now on will fail."

The solicitor said the case was particularly significant for UCATT because the union had up to 50 other asbestos compensation claims in the pipeline.

If the judgement is allowed to stand, said Wood, all these could fold and it would be necessary to turn down any future compensation claims where workers had been exposed to asbestos at more than one company.

The original judge gave leave to appeal. He advised that, if he had found in Mrs Fairchild's favour, he would have awarded her £50,000 damages.