McConnell v British Shipbuilders & Ors [2000] ScotCS 148 (6 June 2000)

McConnell v British Shipbuilders & Ors [2000] ScotCS 148 (6 June 2000)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his current lung condition was asbestosis caused by occupational exposure to asbestos, rather than emphysema or other causes. The evidence established only minor asbestos-related changes, insufficient to support a claim for damages for asbestosis.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 148
Parties
Pursuer: Hugh McConnell; First Defender: British Shipbuilders; Seventh Defender: Cory Ship Towage (Clyde) Limited (in liquidation) and the company's official liquidator; Eighth Defender: Lord Advocate (representing the Ministry of Defence)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved); pursuer's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Asbestosis, Emphysema, Occupational Disease, Negligence, Causation, Damages
Personal Injury Tort Law Employment Law Asbestosis Emphysema Occupational Disease Negligence 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh McConnell

Pursuer

British Shipbuilders

First Defender

Cory Ship Towage (Clyde) Limited (in liquidation) and the company's official liquidator

Seventh Defender

Lord Advocate (representing the Ministry of Defence)

Eighth Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer (Mr McConnell) suffered from asbestosis as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos or from emphysema due to smoking and other factors
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' admitted negligence caused the pursuer's current lung condition
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer is entitled to damages for asbestos-related disease

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his current lung condition was asbestosis caused by occupational exposure to asbestos, rather than emphysema or other causes. The evidence established only minor asbestos-related changes, insufficient to support a claim for damages for asbestosis.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved); pursuer's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Pursuer's claim dismissed
  • Defenders absolved of liability