In a recent judgment in the High Court compensation was awarded to the widow of Paul Blake as a result of Mesothelioma that he developed after exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment with Allied Carpets.  In the claim of Deborah Blake (executrix of the estate of Paul Nigel Blake Deceased) v Mad Max Limited [2018] EWHC 2134 (QB) Judgment was entered against the defendance Mad Max Limited (who now had responsibility for Allied Carpets). The High Court assessed damages following a hearing on 12th July 2018, judgment being given on 8 August 2018.

Mr Blake was a carpet fitter for most of his working life. There were 2 aspects of his work that exposed him to asbestos, the first was using power tools to reduce the size of doors that were insulated with asbestos. The second was removing vinyl flooring which included asbestos fibres. On 30th June 2015 Mr Blake was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died on 18th September 2016 at the age of 61.

The Court awarded damages as follows:-

1. General damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity was awarded at £90.000. This is towards the top end of the bracket for awards for this type of injury and reflected a period of months before death with significant symptoms;
2. Funeral expenses and the cost of a wake. The funeral expenses of £4.673.72 were allowed. The costs of the wake (refreshments after the funeral such as tea, coffee and sandwiches) were not a recoverable part of the claim.
3. There was a claim for the value of care provided by Mrs Blake during Mr Blake’s illness. The amount of care Mrs Blake provided to Mr Blake increased from an hour a day in April to June 2015 to 2 hours then 4 hours and 8 hours through to 24 hours towards the end of Mr Blake’s life. The level of care was to a certain extent estimated, but the judge noted that this is the nature of this type of claim and it was not unreasonable. An hourly rate of £9.24 was agreed discounted by 25% as the care was provided gratuitously.
4. A claim for the value of services which would have been provided by Mr Blake was allowed. Mrs Blake estimated a cost of £750 per year on average to use outside contractors to do work that would otherwise had been done by Mr Blake such as DIY. The value of services provided was estimated by Mrs Blake and the Judge consided that the claim was not unreasonable.
5. Loss of earnings was claimed and the judge had to decide the appropriate level of earnings for Mr Blake and how long he would worked for until retirement. Before he was ill, Mr Blake was a self employed carpet fitter. The Judge decided that the calculation of the loss of earnings claim should be based upon the average of the last three working years before Mr Blake stopped working (rather than just using the figure for the last working year which was noticeably higher than the previous two years before that). Mrs Blake said that Mr Blake had planned to retire at the age of 70. The Judge was prepared to accept this evedence even though Mr Blake’s work was physicial and the defendant’s argued that Mr Blake would not be able to continue working to that age due to the physical nature of the work.
6. A future dependency claim was sought. Mrs Blake had returned to work after Mr Blake’s death, but she has now decreased the number of hours she works per week by five hours to care for her father in Cornwall. The Judge allowed a future dependency claim and decided that this would take into account the fact Mrs Blake would work at a reduce level of earnings of five years.
7. Damages for loss of intangible benefits (loss of a spouse). Mrs Blake in her evidence stated that she had to do everything on her own now including driving, making the bed and vacuuming which were activity’s that she had previously shared with Mr Blake. The Judge agreed that this was a claimable head of loss in addition to claims for loss of services and made an award assessed at £2,500 for loss of intangible benefits.

The judgment has been published and more detailed reading will show the wider arguments that were raised by the parties for each head of loss and the reasoning for the Judges decisions.