Landmark ruling brings new hope to region’s asbestos victims

Judges said that insurance liability was “triggered” when employees were exposed to asbestos dust – not when symptoms of mesothelioma emerged.

Relatives of victims want to make claims on policies from the late 1940s to the late 1990s.

Legal experts say the judgement could affect thousands of people, many from Yorkshire.

Adrian Budgen, a partner at Irwin Mitchell solicitors in Sheffield which specialises in asbestos cases, said families would finally have access to compensation after a six-year legal battle.

Mr Budgen represented June Hancock in a case against the owners of the JW Roberts factory in Armley, Leeds, after her exposure to asbestos as a child in the 1930s led to mesothelioma.

He added that those yet to be diagnosed with the cancer could feel final confident they will still get the financial support they need.

“The problem is that people have been dying without receiving their compensation,” he said. “The average life expectancy after diagnosis of mesothelioma is 12-18 months, so people did not have the opportunity to claim help and support.

“Now finally those families can have access to that money.”

Relatives won the first round of their battle in 2008, when the High Court said firms’ insurers at the time workers inhaled fibres were liable. But two years later the Court of Appeal said in some cases liability was triggered when symptoms developed – sometimes decades after exposure.

Lawyers said the appeal court ruling had left victims’ families facing “confusion and uncertainty”.

But Mrs Hancock’s son, Russell, trustee of a mesothelioma charity set up in his mother’s name, said yesterday’s victory was “tinged with sadness”.

“People are saying it’s a landmark victory but how many landmark victories should there be until people get what they deserve?

He added: “The money will help make the last few days of these lives more comfortable but actually it’s not about that, it’s about making people accountable for what they have done.”

The Supreme Court ruled the disease could be said to have been “sustained” by an employee in the period when it was caused or initiated.

Lord Clarke said: “The negligent exposure of an employee to asbestos during the policy (insurance) period has a sufficient causal link with subsequently arising mesothelioma to trigger the insurer’s obligation.”