In a preliminary-issue judgment on 7 January 2026, the High Court considered whether a man who later died of mesothelioma was directly engaged by a main contractor in 1988, a point on which an asbestos claim against it depends.
Key facts
- Who: The estate of a deceased construction worker and the defendant main contractor in an asbestos-related claim
- From: Judgment date: 7 January 2026
- Source: Tracy Alger v Clayton Bowmore Group Holdings PLC, [2026] EWHC 19 (KB)
In Tracy Alger v Clayton Bowmore Group Holdings PLC [2026] EWHC 19 (KB), Kirsty Brimelow KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court (King's Bench Division), gave judgment on 7 January 2026 after a hearing on 30 October 2025.
Background. Eric Alger was born in 1966 and died on 26 November 2021, aged 55. Mesothelioma was diagnosed in December 2020. His widow, Tracy Alger, brings the claim as administratrix of his estate. She says he was exposed to asbestos in 1988 on the Prince Regent Hotel and Church refurbishment at Manor Road, Chigwell. It is common ground that Clayton Bowmore was the main contractor on the site.
The defendant company was wound up in 1997 and restored to the register for this litigation. It has no known assets, but it is common ground that it held employer's liability insurance with Generali, whose successor is Bothnia Insurance. The judgment records that, in practical terms, the claimant can only recover damages if Clayton Bowmore was Mr Alger's employer. No public liability insurance has been traced.
The question. Was Mr Alger directly employed by Clayton Bowmore, in all respects except paying his own tax and national insurance? Or was he engaged by a labour-only sub-contractor? In the alternative, the claimant argued that even if he worked for a sub-contractor, the main contractor was responsible for his safety. The defendant said he worked for a specialist bricklaying sub-contractor and denied he was exposed to asbestos dust.
The law. The judgment notes there is no single test separating an employee from an independent contractor. A person who pays their own tax and national insurance may also be an employee. In one case it cited, Lane v Shire Roofing, the decision was described as fact sensitive.
The reasoning. The judge accepted that Mr Alger did the work he described, including work alongside a demolition gang in a boiler room and kitchen, and that this was labour rather than bricklaying. She found it unlikely he had confused the project with earlier work. She was not persuaded there was a specialist bricklaying sub-contractor on the project. The defendant's account relied on its former manager, Mr Gale, whom she found vague and inconsistent. His evidence that direct recruitment was unusual was contradicted by Clayton Bowmore's own advertisements, and he accepted in evidence that the company directly recruited bricklayers. She found his memory unreliable. She also pointed to evidence that Clayton Bowmore kept recruiting directly in the late 1980s, and to Mr Alger's account that the contractor supplied the tools and set his hours.
What this means for estates and employers in industrial disease claims
In this case, how a worker was taxed did not settle whether he was employed. The judge looked at the nature of the work, the defendant's recruitment advertisements and the witnesses' evidence. The judgment treats the outcome as dependent on the facts, and there is no single test for employment status.
Sources
- Tracy Alger v Clayton Bowmore Group Holdings PLC, [2026] EWHC 19 (KB), High Court, King's Bench Division, 7 January 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/19