Garner v Salford City Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 1573 (QB) (13 June 2013)

Garner v Salford City Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 1573 (QB) (13 June 2013)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was exposed to asbestos fibres as a result of the defendants' demolition activities. The court found that the removal of lagging was done wet, minimizing the risk of airborne asbestos, and that any exposure to asbestos fibres was minimal or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1573
Parties
Claimant: Penelope Garner; First Defendant: Salford City Council; Second Defendant: P McGuiness and Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Mesothelioma Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Mesothelioma, Asbestos Exposure, Causation, Occupational Disease, Negligence, Burden of Proof
Tort Law Personal Injury Mesothelioma Asbestos Exposure Causation Occupational Disease Negligence Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penelope Garner

Claimant

Salford City Council

First Defendant

P McGuiness and Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Mesothelioma Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was exposed to asbestos fibres as a result of the defendants' demolition activities
  2. 2 Whether such exposure caused the claimant's mesothelioma
  3. 3 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care in the demolition process

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was exposed to asbestos fibres as a result of the defendants' demolition activities. The court found that the removal of lagging was done wet, minimizing the risk of airborne asbestos, and that any exposure to asbestos fibres was minimal or speculative. Therefore, causation was not established and the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants
  • Parties to attempt to agree costs; if not, written submissions to be made for costs determination