Grieves v Everard and Sons and Another and associated claims

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 January 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWCA Civ 27
Date26 January 2006
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

COURT OF APPEAL

Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Longmore and Lady Justice Smith

Rothwell
and
Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another
Topping
and
Benchtown Ltd (formerly Jones Bros Preston Ltd)
Johnston
and
NEI International Combustion Ltd
Mears
and
R. G. Carter Ltd
Grieves
and
F. T. Everard and Sons Ltd and Another
Hindson
and
Pipe House Wharf (Swansea) Ltd
Combining three heads cannot make a claim

THERE was no precedent for aggregating three heads of claim which individually were incapable of founding a cause of action so as to constitute sufficient damage to give rise to a legal claim.

The Court of Appeal so held, Lady Justice Smith dissenting, allowing the appeals of the defendants, Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd, WB Industrial Ltd, Benchtown Ltd, formerly Jones Bros Preston Ltd, NEI International Combustion Ltd, R. G.

Carter Ltd, F. T. Everard and Sons Ltd and British Uralite plc, and of the claimant, Ellis Hindson, from the decision of Mr Justice Holland ((2005) EWHC 88 (QB)) that the defendants were liable to the claimants for personal injury.

The claimants, Alan Rothwell, Bernard John Topping, Kenneth Johnston, David Mears and John Grieves cross-appealed against the quantum of the damages awarded. In the case of Ellis Hindson v Pipe House Wharf (Swansea) Ltd, liability was not in issue but the claimant appealed on quantum.

Mr Michael Kent, QC, Mr Michael Rawlinson and Ms Sophie Allen for Chemical and Insulating, WB Industrial, Benchtown, NEI International Combustion, R. G. Carter, F. T. Everard and Sons and British Uralite plc.

Mr Frank Burton, QC, and Mr Nigel Lewers for Pipe House Wharf (Swansea).

Mr Frank Burton, QC, and Mr Harry Steinberg for Mr Rothwell, Mr Johnston and Mr Mears; Mr Alan Gore, QC, for Mr Topping; Mr David Allan, QC, for Mr Grieves; Mr Charles Feeny for Mr Hindson.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, delivering the joint judgment of himself and Lord Justice Longmore, said that each of the claimants was negligently exposed by his defendant employer to asbestos dust.

That exposure had three foreseeable consequences. The claimant developed pleural plaques; he was at risk of developing one or more long-term asbestos related diseases; he suffered anxiety at the prospect that he might suffer such disease.

It was common ground that none of those consequences, if experienced on its own, would constitute damage capable of founding a cause of action in negligence.

The common issue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Johnston v. NEI International Combustion Ltd., (2007) 375 N.R. 248 (HL)
    • Canada
    • 17 October 2007
    ...that some of these seemed to me rather speculative and I am inclined to agree with Smith, L.J., who said in her dissenting judgment ([2006] I.C.R. 1458, 1492, para. 112) that "the question can and should be answered by the application of established legal principle to a new factual situatio......
  • Daniel Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 April 2016
    ...... not involve exposure to platinum salts; he claims that he has suffered financial loss through loss ...Put another way, it is because the implied contractual duty ......
  • Axa General Insurance Limited And Others For Judicial Review Of The Damages (asbestos-releated Conditions) (scotland) Act 2009
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 8 January 2010
    ...his Lordship held that the aggregate of these features amounted to sufficient damage or harm for actionability purposes. [16] On appeal (2006 ICR 1458), the Court of Appeal by a majority reversed that decision, holding not only that pleural plaques could not of themselves constitute actiona......
  • Helen Wright V. Stoddard International Plc+novartis Grimsby Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 2 August 2007
    ...J in J Grieves & Ors (supra) and, secondly, after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2006] 4 All ER 1161. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Rothwell was appealed by the claimant to the House of Lords and the hearing of the appeal took place ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Harris v. MOD [2016] CSOH 49
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 8 April 2016
    ...The argument on behalf of Mr Harris was that the approach adopted by Smith LJ in Rothwell v. Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd & Anr [2006] EWCA Civ.27 should be applied. This approach assesses the percentage risk of developing a more serious asbestos condition and applies that to the valu......
1 books & journal articles
  • Medical monitoring in North America: does this horse have legs?
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 77 No. 1, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...date of writing [2009 NLTD 39 at para 1]. (25) Wilson, 252 D.L.R. (4th) at 742 (ON S.C.J.). (26) Grieves v. FT Everard & Sons Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 27. (27) Id. at para. (28) [2008] 1 A.C. 281. (29) For an example of a claim for medical monitoring in a non-class action context, see Muril......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT