Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)

Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)

The court found that the deceased’s death was caused by an acute ischaemic event triggering ventricular fibrillation, which would probably have been avoided had he undergone CABG surgery but for the mesothelioma caused by the Defendant’s breach. The Defendant is therefore liable for the death and its consequences. The court rejected claims for loss of services and love and affection due to lack of evidence of actual loss and because such loss is covered by the bereavement award.

Parties
Claimant: Deborah Magill (Executor of Colin Stuart Magill deceased); Defendant: Panel Systems (DB Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Mesothelioma, Asbestos Exposure, Causation, Dependency Claims, Loss of Services, Bereavement Damages
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Mesothelioma Asbestos Exposure Causation Dependency Claims Loss of Services +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Magill (Executor of Colin Stuart Magill deceased)

Claimant

Panel Systems (DB Limited)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the cause of the cardiac arrest which precipitated the death of the deceased?
  2. 2 Would the cardiac arrest have taken place when it did if the deceased had undergone CABG surgery as planned?
  3. 3 What would have been the deceased’s life expectancy but for mesothelioma?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the deceased’s death was caused by an acute ischaemic event triggering ventricular fibrillation, which would probably have been avoided had he undergone CABG surgery but for the mesothelioma caused by the Defendant’s breach. The Defendant is therefore liable for the death and its consequences. The court rejected claims for loss of services and love and affection due to lack of evidence of actual loss and because such loss is covered by the bereavement award.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Defendant held liable for the death of the deceased and consequential losses flowing from that event.
  • No award for dependency on services or loss of love and affection.