Boyes Turner were instructed by Mr T following his diagnosis of asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos dust whilst he was employed by Hickson & Welch Limited and North Thames Gas Board.
Employment and exposure to asbestos
Mr T was employed by the Hickson & Welch Ltd at their chemical factory in Castleford during the 1960s. He was initially employed as an apprentice welder. After about two years he became an apprentice instrument technician. He ultimately became an instrument technician. Throughout his entire employment, he was part of the maintenance team.
He was required to work in and around asbestos lagging and his work included removing asbestos lagging and clearing up the same. He also worked in the vicinity of laggers.
Later in the 1960s, Mr T was employed by North Thames Gas Board, working as a technician in the Fulham area. He was required to work in and around asbestos lagging and his work included removing asbestos lagging and clearing up the same.
Mr T alleged that he was exposed to significant or substantial quantities of asbestos over a prolonged period with the 2 defendant companies.
As a result of this exposure to asbestos whilst employed by both defendants, Mr T developed asbestosis.
We set about investigating the claim and obtaining medical evidence to support Mr T’s claim and to enable us to value his claim. Court proceedings were issued in January 2015.
The medical evidence obtained concluded that Mr T suffered from a 10% respiratory disability due to asbestosis and that he was at risk of developing further asbestos related disease in the future.
The defendants obtained their own evidence which concluded that this respiratory disability from asbestosis was 2% and that he was at risk of developing further asbestos related disease in the future.
At a court hearing in November 2016, the court entered judgment in Mr T’s favour against the 2 defendants and an assessment of damages hearing was listed for February 2017.
Just less than 3 weeks before that hearing date settlement was agreed between the parties.
Mr T had sought damages on a provisional basis so as to protect himself and his family for the future given the future risks. A provisional damages settlement was agreed which gives Mr T the compensation he is now entitled to, together with a court order which will enable him to return for further compensation in the event of future significant deterioration.