Description
The Court of Appeal held that whilst there had been insufficient evidence before the Judge to support the second of three sources of exposure to asbestos found by the Judge, the Judge had been entitled to find a more than de minimis exposure to asbestos from the other two sources. Accordingly, it was not enough to eliminate one source of exposure if another or others remain in place as there is no safe dose of asbestos. Thus, once exposure to asbestos above a minimal level is found to exist, a risk of harm was established. The Judge had therefore been entitled to find that the Defendant Local Authority had negligently exposed the Claimant to asbestos, and that exposure had materially increased the risk that she would contract mesothelioma later in life.
