McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government & Anor

McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The First Respondent was not liable in negligence as harm from modest asbestos exposure was not foreseeable in the 1950s. The Second Respondent was liable for breach of statutory duty under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, as the burden of proof regarding statutory exceptions and practicability lay with the occupier, and the evidence established breach and causation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Percy Leonard McDonald; First Defendant/respondent: Department for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/respondent: National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed against First Respondent; appeal allowed against Second Respondent.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Asbestos Exposure, Causation, Employer Liability
Tort Statutory Duty Employment Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Asbestos Exposure Causation Employer Liability

Case Brief

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy Leonard McDonald

Claimant/appellant

Department for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant/respondent

National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent owed a non-delegable duty at common law to provide a safe system of work
  2. 2 Whether the Second Respondent breached statutory duties under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 and Factories Act 1937
  3. 3 Whether exposure to asbestos dust at the Second Respondent's premises caused mesothelioma

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent was not liable in negligence as harm from modest asbestos exposure was not foreseeable in the 1950s. The Second Respondent was liable for breach of statutory duty under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, as the burden of proof regarding statutory exceptions and practicability lay with the occupier, and the evidence established breach and causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed against First Respondent; appeal allowed against Second Respondent.

Orders

  • Second Respondent held liable for breach of statutory duty under Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931.
  • Claim against First Respondent dismissed.