Abraham v G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd & Anor

Abraham v G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd & Anor

The defendants could not reasonably have foreseen the risk of injury from the claimant's light and intermittent asbestos exposure given the state of knowledge at the time. No negligence or breach of statutory duty was established.

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
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Asbestos Exposure, Causation, Employer's Duty of Care
Tort Employment Personal Injury Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Asbestos Exposure Causation Employer's Duty of Care

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 5 Authorities cited 19 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

Civil / Judgment

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 the risk of injury from the claimant's light and intermittent asbestos exposure given the state of knowledge at the time. No negligence or breach of statutory duty was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.