Boyes Turner's expert mesothelioma claims lawyers were instructed by the family of Mr M, following his death in 2010. Mr M was investigated for suspected mesothelioma in his lifetime. Upon his death a post mortem was undertaken and lung tissue samples taken and analysed by a pathologist. The coroner concluded that Mr M died from mesothelioma, an asbestos related disease.The family of Mr M alleged that he was exposed to asbestos when unloading raw asbestos and when loading manufactured asbestos products at the Tilbury Docks from 1955 to 1988.His employment was allocated by the National Dock Labour Board predecessors in title to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.Following his death, Mr M’s family instructed Boyes Turner expert asbestos lawyers to investigate a claim for compensation. Mr M had not produced a lifetime statement. Boyes Turner expert asbestos lawyers obtained witness evidence from Mr M’s brother and from other Dockers who worked at Tilbury Docks. Mr M had instructed another firm of solicitors prior to his death. They did not accept Mr M’s case, but had made a note in a questionnaire of his exposure to asbestos. The witness evidence was presented to the Defendant, but was rejected. The Defendant alleged that there was not anywhere near as much asbestos imported into Tilbury Docks as the witnesses alleged.Expert evidence was obtained by both parties from expert engineers regarding the extent of Mr M’s exposure to asbestos.The defendant also rejected Mr M’s diagnosis and Boyes Turner asbestos lawyers obtained a further pathology opinion from an expert pathologist. The pathologist concluded that Mr M had a diagnosis of lung cancer as opposed to mesothelioma. The defendant then contended that Mr M had not had enough exposure to asbestos dust to prove a diagnosis of asbestos related lung cancer.Mr M had also been diagnosed with asbestosis in 2004 for which he had received a payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 and for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The defendant contented that the time for bringing a claim for compensation had passed.The facts of the claim were fairly similar to those of George Collins v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills & other. The claim was stayed for a short period of time pending the outcome of the appeal of this case. When the claimant, George Collins, was unsuccessful at the Court of Appeal we pushed forward with Mr M’s case and a 5 day trial was listed for 2015. The defendant had permission to obtain their own pathology opinion.We successfully concluded Mr M’s claim for £60,000.