Najib v John Laing Plc

In assessing damages for mesothelioma, the court may award substantial general damages reflecting severe pain, treatment and reduced life expectancy. Reasonable expenditure on alternative treatment may be recoverable even where the treatment has no proven clinical efficacy, provided the claimant’s decision was reasonable in the circumstances. A conventional deduction for the claimant’s own living expenses applies to a lost-years claim unless reliable evidence supports a different proportion. Expenditure for relatives or charitable purposes is not deductible.

The claimant had obtained judgment for damages following negligent asbestos exposure during employment as a joiner. The remaining disputes concerned general damages, aids and equipment, alternative treatment and medication, and the deduction for living expenses in calculating future losses arising from reduced life expectancy.

The court also considered authorities concerning mesothelioma damages, loss of amenity, and the conventional deduction in lost-years claims.

1. General damages. The claimant’s mesothelioma involved severe pain, impaired mobility and quality of life, repeated hospital treatment, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and increasing reliance on morphine. Taking account of the reduced life expectancy under s.1(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, general damages were assessed at £80,000.
2. Loss of amenity. A further sum for loss of carpentry, DIY and maintenance skills was refused. The evidence did not establish that these activities materially continued after retirement.
3. Aids and equipment. The cost of a chair lift and motor rise-and-recline chair was allowed. Although the chair lift would be useful only for a limited period, it would permit the claimant to remain in his bedroom with access to a proper bathroom and would improve the quality of his remaining life. The total allowed was £5,544.13.
4. Alternative treatment. The cost of photodynamic treatment and associated medication was recoverable. The treatment had no established efficacy and the award did not endorse the Dove Clinic. However, the claimant and his son had relied on a medically qualified practitioner’s proposal in the context of a painful illness, short life expectancy and fear of chemotherapy. Their decision to seek and undergo the treatment was reasonable.
5. Lost years. Living expenses comprise the proportion of the claimant’s net income spent to maintain himself. Expenditure benefiting relatives or charitable causes is not deductible, and shared expenditure must be apportioned. The conventional 50 per cent deduction was appropriate because the evidence did not reliably establish that the claimant’s son met all household expenditure. The lost-years claim was therefore assessed using a multiplicand of £4,087 and produced £50,474.45.
6. After agreed items, interest, the interim payment and recoverable social security benefits were taken into account, judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £124,311.20.