Maggs v Anstey

In an asbestos-related mesothelioma claim, a claimant need not prove the precise dates of exposure. It is sufficient to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the opportunity for the alleged exposure existed during the defendant’s employment and that the account of the exposure is fundamentally accurate. In assessing evidence recalled after many years, the court may accept the core account while discounting inaccurate peripheral details. Incompleteness or deficiencies in contemporaneous business records do not necessarily exclude exposure. Where exposure occurred after the Asbestos Regulations 1969 came into force, liability followed on the common ground identified by the parties.

The claimant continued proceedings brought by her late husband, who had developed mesothelioma after working as a haulage driver for the defendant between 1966 and 1972. Liability was disputed, although damages were agreed at £230,000.

The claimant alleged that the deceased had collected and delivered a dusty load of asbestos in an articulated lorry, involving substantial manual unloading without protective clothing. The defendant relied on diaries and rate books, which did not record the alleged journey and suggested that particular bank-holiday dates were unavailable. The central issue was whether the deceased’s account was sufficiently reliable to establish asbestos exposure during his employment.

1. The claim succeeded. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the agreed sum of £230,000.

2. The claimant was not required to prove the precise dates on which exposure occurred. It was sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that an opportunity for exposure existed during the employment and that the deceased’s account was basically accurate.

3. The court accepted the deceased’s account of collecting a dusty load at Avonmouth and delivering it to premises in Tolpits Lane, Watford. The account contained convincing specific details, including the delivery location, the name of the company and the dusty conditions. Errors about peripheral matters, such as who arranged the load or whether it was the only collection from Avonmouth, did not undermine its fundamental accuracy.

4. The diaries and rate books were not a complete or wholly accurate record of the defendant’s work. They therefore did not exclude the possibility that the journey occurred over a bank-holiday weekend. The court also accepted that the deceased could have completed the relevant work on the Tuesday following the August bank holiday in 1971.

5. The exposure occurred while the deceased was employed by the defendant and after 1 May 1970. The court proceeded on the common ground that the Asbestos Regulations 1969, which came into force on 14 May 1970, applied to exposure after that date and that liability attached if such exposure was proved.