APPEAL BY NICOLA STEVEN WATT OR MURRAY AND OTHERS AGAINST LEND LEASE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] ScotCS CSIH_19 (21 April 2023)

APPEAL BY NICOLA STEVEN WATT OR MURRAY AND OTHERS AGAINST LEND LEASE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] ScotCS CSIH_19 (21 April 2023)

The Lord Ordinary did not err in law; he made factual determinations based on the evidence led before him, particularly preferring Professor Willey's evidence that the deceased's exposure was secondary, intermittent, and low level. At the relevant time (1963), employers could not have been expected to foresee a risk of asbestos-related injury from such low-level exposure. The appeal fails.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSIH_19
Parties
Pursuers: Nicola Steven Watt or Murray and Others; Defenders: Lend Lease Construction Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Asbestos Exposure, Foreseeability, Mesothelioma
Tort Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Asbestos Exposure Foreseeability Mesothelioma

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Steven Watt or Murray and Others

Pursuers

Lend Lease Construction Ltd

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was or ought to have been reasonably foreseeable to the defenders at the material time that the exposure to asbestos gave rise to the risk of asbestos-related injury
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in law in his treatment of Abraham v G Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd and another

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary did not err in law; he made factual determinations based on the evidence led before him, particularly preferring Professor Willey's evidence that the deceased's exposure was secondary, intermittent, and low level. At the relevant time (1963), employers could not have been expected to foresee a risk of asbestos-related injury from such low-level exposure. The appeal fails.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • reclaiming motion refused