Balls v Reeve & Anor

Balls v Reeve & Anor

The claim is not statute-barred as the claimant did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a significant injury attributable to asbestos exposure before diagnosis in 2017. Even if wrong on limitation, the court would exercise discretion under section 33 to allow the claim. The claimant was exposed to asbestos during employment with ST Thurlow between 1979 and 1984, breach of duty is established, and causation is proved by medical evidence. Judgment is entered for the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Edward George Balls; Defendants: Margaret Reeve & Bryan James Thurlow (as personal representatives of the Estate of Sydney Theodore Thurlow, deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Asbestos Exposure, Personal Injury, Breach of Statutory Duty, Causation, Apportionment of Damages
Tort Employment Law Limitation of Actions Asbestos Exposure Personal Injury Breach of Statutory Duty Causation Apportionment of Damages

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward George Balls

Claimant

Margaret Reeve & Bryan James Thurlow (as personal representatives of the Estate of Sydney Theodore Thurlow, deceased)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was exposed to asbestos during employment with ST Thurlow between 1979 and 1984

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is not statute-barred as the claimant did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a significant injury attributable to asbestos exposure before diagnosis in 2017. Even if wrong on limitation, the court would exercise discretion under section 33 to allow the claim. The claimant was exposed to asbestos during employment with ST Thurlow between 1979 and 1984, breach of duty is established, and causation is proved by medical evidence. Judgment is entered for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Mr Balls (the claimant)
  • Apportionment and quantum to be agreed between the parties