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 claimant's exposure to asbestos with both defendants was found to be light, intermittent, and infrequent. Given the state of knowledge at the time, a reasonable employer would not have foreseen a risk of injury from such low-level exposure. The defendants were not negligent and did not breach statutory duty, as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1958 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Terence Charles Abraham; First Defendants: G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited; Second Defendants: Stanley Reynolds T/A Reynolds & Spademan (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (asbestos Exposure) / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asbestos Exposure, Employer's Liability, Negligence, Causation, Breach of Statutory Duty, Mesothelioma, Foreseeability of Risk
Tort Personal Injury Occupational Health and Safety Asbestos Exposure Employer's Liability Negligence Causation Breach of Statutory Duty +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Charles Abraham

Claimant

G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited

First Defendants

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

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (asbestos Exposure) / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant exposed to asbestos dust during employment with the defendants?
  2. 2 What was the extent of his asbestos exposure?
  3. 3 Did that exposure cause his mesothelioma?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's exposure to asbestos with both defendants was found to be light, intermittent, and infrequent. Given the state of knowledge at the time, a reasonable employer would not have foreseen a risk of injury from such low-level exposure. The defendants were not negligent and did not breach statutory duty, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable and the exposure was not of such a character or extent as to be likely to be injurious to health under the applicable regulations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed