Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

In an asbestos-related mesothelioma claim, the claimant need not prove that the defendant’s exposure was the sole cause of the disease. It is sufficient to establish that the exposure materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, subject to the de minimis principle. No fixed duration or measurement of exposure is required. Exposure may be cumulatively material where several instances, each potentially slight, together create more than a minimal risk. Where the defendant knew or ought to have known that more than minimal asbestos exposure was foreseeably hazardous, negligence is established if reasonably practicable precautions, such as carrying out work when pupils were absent, isolating the area, or using non-asbestos materials, were not taken.

The claimant, a former pupil, developed terminal pleural mesothelioma after attending a secondary school for which the defendant was responsible between 1972 and 1979. She claimed damages for negligent exposure to asbestos fibres. The defendant disputed both causation and breach of duty.

The court considered exposure arising from work on ceiling tiles in a corridor, pupils’ disturbance of ceiling tiles, and damaged asbestos tiles stored in girls’ toilets. It also considered, but rejected, alleged exposure from other construction work and a suspended ceiling. The central issues were whether the identified exposures materially increased the risk of mesothelioma and whether the defendant had failed to take reasonably practicable precautions.

1. Causation. Applying Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, the claimant was not required to prove that asbestos from the defendant’s school caused the disease to the exclusion of all other sources. It was sufficient that the exposure at the school materially increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma.
2. De minimis threshold. Following the approach in Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd v Cox [2007] EWCA Civ 1189, no specific measurement of exposure or fixed duration was required. Exposure below the de minimis level would be insufficient, but regular exposure was not a necessary precondition to liability.
3. The claimant was exposed to asbestos dust through work on asbestos-containing ceiling tiles in the T-shaped corridor, disturbance of ceiling tiles by pupils, and damaged asbestos tiles stored in the girls’ toilets. The exposures were more than minimal, both individually and collectively, and materially increased the risk of mesothelioma.
4. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care and knew, or ought to have known, that more than minimal exposure to asbestos dust was foreseeably hazardous. Reasonably practicable precautions included carrying out the work during holidays, weekends or at night, isolating the relevant area, storing tiles safely, and replacing damaged asbestos tiles with non-asbestos materials. The failure to take such precautions amounted to breach of duty.
5. The claim succeeded. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the agreed gross sum of £240,000.