Beesley v New Century Group Ltd

In assessing damages for mesothelioma, current Judicial Studies Board Guidelines should ordinarily be followed where they reflect up-to-date judicial decisions and medical knowledge. A shorter period of suffering does not necessarily justify a proportionate reduction where severe pain and impairment existed throughout. Gratuitous care by a relative is recoverable according to the care actually provided, with commercial rates discounted where appropriate. In Fatal Accidents Act dependency claims, income paid to a spouse may form part of the dependency when it derives substantially from the marital relationship, subject to deducting the true value of services provided to the business. A spouse may also recover for the loss of intangible benefits associated with services personally provided by the deceased.

The claimant, the widow and executrix of John Lambie, brought claims under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 following his death from asbestos-related mesothelioma. Liability had already been established by order. The hearing concerned disputed heads of damages, including general damages, care and assistance, loss of earnings, income dependency, services dependency and loss of intangible benefits. The central issues were the appropriate valuation of the claimant’s losses and the legal principles governing gratuitous care, spousal dependency and non-pecuniary benefits arising from lost services.

1. General damages. The court followed the current JSB Guidelines, which represented current best practice based on up-to-date decisions and medical knowledge. The approach in Rees v Mabco [102] Limited, as referred to in Heil v Rankin, did not justify disregarding the Guidelines. Severe pain and impairment had existed throughout the approximately 17-month illness, although they became more intense towards the end. The appropriate award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was £72,000.
2. Care and assistance. The governing principles included the approach in Hunt v Severs, the requirement that care by a relative go beyond what the relative would otherwise have done, and the fact-sensitive assessment required by Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd. The qualification identified in Giambrone v Sunworld Holidays Ltd was accepted: the relevant inquiry was whether the care went beyond what a wife would anyhow have done for her husband. Applying those principles, the claimant’s extensive care justified an award of £25,000.
3. Income dependency. The £3,000 paid annually to the claimant from the deceased’s business formed part of the dependency because it substantially arose from the marital relationship, although £1,500 was deducted as the value of the claimant’s actual services to the business, applying Malyon v Plummer. The court assessed the deceased’s likely working life, contingencies, pensions and the appropriate multiplier, awarding £13,501 for past and £70,953 for future income dependency.
4. Services and intangible benefits. The court awarded £7,000 for past and £20,000 for future loss of domestic and gardening services. Following the approach in Regan v Williamson, Hay v Hughes and Mehmet v Perry, a separate award may compensate the additional personal value of services provided by a spouse or parent, where justified by the facts. £2,000 was awarded for loss of intangible benefits.
5. The total damages, excluding interest, were £242,853.