The High Court has given judgment on a damages claim by the family of a man who died of mesothelioma, alleging he was exposed to asbestos dust as an apprentice in 1965.
Key facts
- Who: Families of people who have died of mesothelioma and who are pursuing damages claims
- From: Judgment of 1 May 2026
- Source: Christine Devall & Ors v English Electric Company Limited [2026] EWHC 1025 (KB)
Background
In Christine Devall & Ors v English Electric Company Limited [2026] EWHC 1025 (KB), Clare Padley, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the King's Bench Division, heard the case on 19 and 20 March 2026. The judgment is dated 1 May 2026.
Richard Devall was born in 1944. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2022 and died on 28 April 2022, aged 78. The claim was brought by his widow and his two sons, who are co-executors of his estate. It was made under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1934 on behalf of the estate, and under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 on behalf of his widow as his dependant. It was issued on 29 August 2024.
The claimants said Mr Devall worked for the defendant as an apprentice electrical engineer at Sizewell A nuclear power station in Suffolk. By the time of trial, the alleged exposure was said to have taken place between March or April and July 1965, while he was commissioning alternators in the turbine hall. They said lagging teams working nearby were applying asbestos insulation to the steam turbine. The particulars of claim were amended in March 2025, having originally given different dates.
The defendant accepted that HMRC records showed Mr Devall's employment from 1962/3 to 1969/70, but made no admissions about his role or tasks. It denied that the evidence showed he was exposed to asbestos dust at Sizewell A, or that any exposure amounted to a breach of its duty.
The questions for the court
The parties told the court that if asbestos exposure and breach of duty were established, medical causation would not be in dispute. It was common ground that mesothelioma is almost invariably caused by exposure to asbestos dust or fibres. They also agreed that damages, subject to liability, were £215,081, including interest and deductible benefits.
The court was asked to decide five issues: whether Mr Devall was exposed to asbestos through insulation work; the nature and extent of that work nearby and the level of his exposure; whether any exposure created a foreseeable risk of significant injury, given the state of knowledge at the time; whether the defendant took precautions; and whether there was a breach of duty. The judge said it was for the claimants to satisfy the court on all of these issues for the claim to succeed.
The evidence
Mr Devall left no witness statement during his lifetime. The claimants relied on evidence from his widow and his brother-in-law, who had worked at another power station, together with employment records and a health and safety expert. A written medical report was also used. The defendant called no lay or medical witnesses and relied on its own health and safety expert.
In cross-examination, the brother-in-law accepted that some dates in his first statement were inaccurate and based on assumption, saying "It is difficult to remember details 60 years later". He accepted that part of what he said about Sizewell A was supposition rather than a specific conversation. He could not recall Mr Devall describing the nature, location, frequency or distance of any insulation work there.
What this means for families bringing asbestos claims
- The claimants had to satisfy the court on every issue: exposure, its level, foreseeability of risk, precautions and breach of duty. Medical causation was agreed if exposure and breach were proved, so the dispute centred on exposure and breach of duty.
- The claim was amended during the proceedings, with the alleged period of exposure changed to March or April to July 1965.
Sources
- Christine Devall & Ors v English Electric Company Limited [2026] EWHC 1025 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 1 May 2026