McKenzie v. Barclay Curle Ltd & Ors [2002] ScotCS 34 (7th February, 2002)

McKenzie v. Barclay Curle Ltd & Ors [2002] ScotCS 34 (7th February, 2002)

On the balance of probabilities, the pursuer developed pleural plaques, pleural thickening, and asbestosis as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos dust during employment with the first and third defenders. The court preferred the evidence of the pursuer's experts, finding that asbestos-related conditions caused significant disability and justified an award of damages.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 34
Parties
Pursuer: Brian McKenzie; First Defender: Barclay Curle Limited; Second Defender: P & O Shipping Limited; Third Defender: Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Asbestos Exposure, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Damages Assessment, Causation, Occupational Disease
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Asbestos Exposure Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Damages Assessment Causation +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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian McKenzie

Pursuer

Barclay Curle Limited

First Defender

P & O Shipping Limited

Second Defender

Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer developed asbestosis, pleural plaques, and pleural thickening as a result of exposure to asbestos dust during employment with the defenders
  2. 2 The extent of disability and damages attributable to asbestos-related conditions

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the pursuer developed pleural plaques, pleural thickening, and asbestosis as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos dust during employment with the first and third defenders. The court preferred the evidence of the pursuer's experts, finding that asbestos-related conditions caused significant disability and justified an award of damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Sustain the pursuer's first plea-in-law
  • Repel the first and third defenders' first, second, and third pleas-in-law