NICOLA STEVEN WATT AND OTHERS AGAINST LEND LEASE CONSTRUCTION (EUROPE) LIMITED [2022] ScotCS CSOH_23 (03 March 2022)

NICOLA STEVEN WATT AND OTHERS AGAINST LEND LEASE CONSTRUCTION (EUROPE) LIMITED [2022] ScotCS CSOH_23 (03 March 2022)

It was not until after the publication of the Newhouse and Thomson paper in 1965 that employers could have been aware that asbestos exposure at the level to which Mr Watt was subjected gave rise to the risk of injury; therefore, Bovis could not reasonably have foreseen the risk and was not negligent nor in breach of Regulation 20.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_23
Parties
Pursuers: Nicola Steven Watt or Murray and Others; Defenders: Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons
Legal Topics
Negligence, Asbestos Exposure, Foreseeability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Mesothelioma, Construction (general Provisions) Regulations 1961
Tort Health and Safety Employment Negligence Asbestos Exposure Foreseeability Breach of Statutory Duty Mesothelioma +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Steven Watt or Murray and Others

Pursuers

Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were or ought to have been aware in 1963 that asbestos exposure at the levels experienced by Mr Watt gave rise to a risk of injury
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were negligent at common law
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of Regulation 20 of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961

Ratio Decidendi

It was not until after the publication of the Newhouse and Thomson paper in 1965 that employers could have been aware that asbestos exposure at the level to which Mr Watt was subjected gave rise to the risk of injury; therefore, Bovis could not reasonably have foreseen the risk and was not negligent nor in breach of Regulation 20.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons

Orders

  • No liability established against defenders
  • No damages awarded to pursuers