Skingsley v Cape Asbestos Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 09 April 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J0409-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 April 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Civ J0409-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
From Mr Justice Blain.
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
Mr N. IRVINE (instructed by Messrs Pattinson & Brewer) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff).
This is an application for leave far the purposes of the Limitation Act 1963. It is heard ex parte. Mr Skingeley was employed by the Cape Asbestos Co. for many years. He started work there in 1949. At first he worked in the disintegrating section. From 1950 onwards he cleaned down machinery and pipes. In all his work he came into contact with asbestos dust. He was ill occasionally. He had chest trouble in 1957 but appeared to get over it. In 1964 he fell ill again. On the 12th August, 1964, he was told that he was suffering from asbestos is and that it was acquired during his employment with the Cape Asbestos Co. It was a disease often occurring in these works. Several of his fellow workmen suffered also. They were known as "dust cases". The employers looked after them well. They gave them a day off each week and every man received a disablement pension. Mr Skingeley was treated like the other "dust cases'. He did not regard himself as being entitled to any further compensation. He says he knew of 25 or 30 others of his workmates who were in receipt of a similar disability pension. He accepted the asbestosis as one of the risks of the job.
He continued with his cleaning work until the end of the year 1964, when he was transferred to another department. Then two three years later, in January 1967, the factory closed down and he left their employment. He had not at that time made any claim for damages in respect of the asbestosis.
About October 1967 he went to a public house near the factory and saw some of his old colleagues. He met a Mr Dawkins, who was one of his fellow workmates. Mr Dawkins had recently seen the solicitors of the Trade Union. He had bean told that a claim for damages might be made. Up to that time Mr Skingeley had no idea that he might have a claim for damages. So in November 1967 he went to his Union who put him in touch with the solicitors. They considered that he might have a claim but it was barred by the Statute of Limitations unless he couldobtain leave under the 1963 Act. So they have made this application under the Act. Mr Justice Blain was sympathetic to the application, but he felt that Mr Skingeley knew the material facts in 1964 when he was told he bad asbeatosis. More than twelve months had passed since that time. So he refused to give leave. Mr Skingsley appeals to this Court.
We considered this Act quite recently in the cast of Pickles v. National Coal Board. The case shows that, in the case of an industrial disease, time does not run against a man unless and until he has knowledge (actual or constructive) of these material facts: (i) that he is suffering from the disease; and (ii) that the disease is attributable to the negligence or breach of duty of his employers. Once he has sufficient knowledge (actual or constructive) of those facts, such that a reasonable person in his place (who was in receipt of competent medical or legal advice) would have realised that he had a worthwhile action, they are facts of a decisive nature and time than begins to run against him. He must within twelve months get leave for the purposes of the statute and bring his action against the employers.
Applying those considerations, it is clear that Mr Skingsley had actual knowledge ever since August 1964 that he had asbestosis and that it was due to his work! but he did not actually know till November 1967 that the disease was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wright v Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd
-
Smith v Central Asbestos Company Ltd
...misapprehension is removed. This is shown by four cases in this Court: Pickles v. National Coal Board (1968 1 W.L.R. 992); Skingsley v. Cape Asbestos Company Ltd. (1968 Vol. 2 Lloyds List Reports 201); Newton v. Cammell Laird & Co. (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Ltd. (1969 1 W.L.R. 413); Dri......
-
Smith v Central Asbestos Company Ltd
...misapprehension is removed. This is shown by four cases in this Court: Pickles v. National Coal Board (1968 1 W.L.R. 992); Skingsley v. Cape Asbestos Company Ltd. (1968 Vol. 2 Lloyds List Reports 201); Newton v. Cammell Laird & Co. (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Ltd. (1969 1 W.L.R. 413); Dri......
-
Re Harper v National Coal Board (Intended Action)
...cause of action. Those were such cases as: In re Pickles v. National Coal Board (intended action,) (1968) 1 W. L. R. 997. Skingsley v. Cape Asbestos Co. Ltd. (1968) 2 Lloyds Rep. 201, C. A.; Newton v. Caramel Laird & Co. (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Ltd. (1969) 1 W. L. B. 415, C. A. Drinkwa......