Abraham v G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1958 (QB) (31 July 2009)

Abraham v G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1958 (QB) (31 July 2009)

The defendants could not reasonably have foreseen, given the state of knowledge prior to 1965, that light and intermittent asbestos exposure posed a risk of injury to the claimant. The exposure was not negligent, nor did it breach statutory duty, as the regulations were not triggered by the low level of exposure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1958
Parties
Claimant: Terence Charles Abraham; First Defendant: G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited; Second Defendant: Stanley Reynolds T/A Reynolds & Spademan (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Asbestos Exposure / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asbestos Exposure, Mesothelioma, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Causation, Foreseeability, Employer's Duty of Care
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Asbestos Exposure Mesothelioma Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Causation +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Charles Abraham

Claimant

G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited

First Defendant

Stanley Reynolds T/A Reynolds & Spademan (A Firm)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Asbestos Exposure / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant exposed to asbestos dust during employment with the defendants?
  2. 2 Did the exposure cause mesothelioma?
  3. 3 Was the exposure negligent or in breach of statutory duty?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants could not reasonably have foreseen, given the state of knowledge prior to 1965, that light and intermittent asbestos exposure posed a risk of injury to the claimant. The exposure was not negligent, nor did it breach statutory duty, as the regulations were not triggered by the low level of exposure described.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed