A Diary Of A Mesowarrior #Mesothelioma #Asbestos – Shut in with the Snow, Rare Disease Day -MIST Trial for Mesothelioma Announced

Tom Banburywhistable blog 2

What a week its been. All we have talked about is snow that is the word on every ones lips this week.

The photos have been wonderful and we have a brilliant photographer her in Whistable.

He uses his drone and that means we have views that are just great. The one above is one and I was enthralled the snow goes up to the waterline. The edges were frozen as well.

The snow gets thicker the more we go out of Whistable but the roads have been treacherous.



















































We live in the country side so but was amazed that the roads 

Were passable















There that is my photos we had to have snow pictures didn’t we.











Today Is Rare Disease Day


They call Mesothelioma rare I don’t understand why? But I suppose it’s because it is a hard one to conquer.

But the great news is that there is another trial for us this month. The MIST Trial.

British Lung Foundation‏ is funding a ‘world-first’ clinical trial for mesothelioma. Patients in who chemo has failed, will be split into different treatment groups based on the characteristics of their tumours. The trial opens for recruitment next month. http://www.mesothelioma-research-leicester.com/mist/ @Leic_hospital

I have had emails everyday arranging for me to be free to  speak in different conferences and meetings so my life is getting busier from now on. I seem to be travelling further afield so I just go with the flow.

This is the start of something big — Mesothelioma Stratified Therapy (MiST)
Drug based therapies are limited by variations in sensitivity within the population being treated. Some patients’ mesotheliomas are drug-sensitive, whilst others are resistant. In recent years, it has become clear that in order to maximize the benefit of anticancer drugs, a one-size-fits-all approach, is no longer applicable.
Identifying patients’ tumours likely to respond to a particular drug requires a predictive biomarker, coupled to a targeted therapy. So called, Personalised medicine. For patients with mesothelioma, personalised medicine is currently in its infancy.
With the support of a £2.5M donation from the British Lung Foundation, Leicester is leading the development of the world’s first molecularly stratified umbrella study, Mesothelioma Stratified Therapy (MisT).
This trial, set to open in the 1st quarter of 2018 will utilise as a first step, a molecular profiling panel to identify patients who are eligible for treatment. The second step will be to stratify patients for treatment, based on molecular eligibility. Patients would receive up to 4 different treatments sequentially. The third step will be to utilize genomic interrogation of the original biopsy tissue, in order to understand why patients respond (or not) to the trial drugs, and if they respond, what factors eventually lead to the emergence of drug resistance.
MiST will be a flagship, Leicester sponsored clinical trial. Initially located in a single centre, the expectation will be that the study will be able to expand to multiple UK centres, with the potential to add promising new treatment arms and additional molecular stratifications.








Very exciting things for 2018.

I start with a Conference  The 12KBW have the Annual Conference where Ray and I will be giving a short speech about the MNFoundation.
We are delighted to announce our Annual Asbestos Seminar on 21 March 2018 at the Barbican Centre.
The seminar will be chaired by Harry Steinberg QC with talks from 2pm to 6pm and will be followed by a drinks reception.
Members of our team have continued to act in the leading cases, including Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd, in which Michael Rawlinson QC and Gemma Scott presented a challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Williams v University of Birmingham.






4 Ways to Cope with Grief from #Mesothelioma, #Asbestos-Related Diseases

cope-mesothelioma-asbestos-related-diseasesThere is no one right way to grieve. It’s natural to experience feelings of pain and grief over the loss of a loved one.
People who are grieving the loss of someone from an asbestos-related disease like mesothelioma or lung cancer usually feel:
A desire to be close to the deceased person
Social withdrawal
A deep sense of loss
Disrupted sleep
Poor appetite
Shock and disbelief (initially)
Memory and concentration difficulties (temporarily)
Adaptive Grief Versus Complicated Grief
While it would be incorrect to call any grief “normal,” the usual grieving process is one by which people mourn the loss of a loved one, feel the pain and anguish of that loss and, eventually, return to a state where they can function and even enjoy life again. Adaptive grief does not mean forgetting the person who died of mesothelioma, nor does it mean ignoring the pain that may reoccur when thinking about the loss of that person. That being said, adaptive grief does subside.
Unrelenting grief that becomes debilitating, on the other hand, is not constructive. Mental health professionals call this kind complicated grief.
Complicated grief is a prolonged, intense and disabling form of grief that emotionally paralyzes the sufferer, trapping them in a state filled with troubling thoughts, restless sleep and difficult emotions. People who suffer from complicated grief withdraw from friends and loved ones. They also have trouble fulfilling their obligations, such as tasks at school or work.
Complicated grief is not subtle, and is distinct from adaptive or “normal” grief.
Adaptive grief can become complicated grief with little to no warning. People who experience complicated grief should talk to a health professional. Likewise, anyone who experiences grief over the loss of someone to mesothelioma should find ways to effectively deal with that grief. Here are four ways to deal with adaptive grief from losing a loved one to mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease.
Speak with a Mental Health Professional
If you feel you may not be dealing with mesothelioma grief effectively or the grief seems to be negatively affecting your life, remember that grief counselors and mental health professionals are always available to help you deal with these thoughts and emotions. Your hospice social worker or chaplain also offer bereavement counseling you may take advantage of. Many feel the comfort of reaching out to clergy during difficult times. At the least, it’s important to talk to someone you trust about your emotions. Sometimes just acknowledging the hurt and pain out loud can make a difference.
Remember, when your loved one had mesothelioma, you were there for support. You, too, deserve care and support as you deal with the loss of a loved one from an asbestos-related disease like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
Reach out to Others Devastated by Mesothelioma and Asbestos
Those experiencing grief often withdraw from social contact. Unfortunately, social withdrawal can make things worse.
The loss of someone to mesothelioma hardly ever affects just one person. Try to reach out to family and friends who also feel your loss. It may help to discuss these feelings to support each other through this difficult time. Including loved ones in your grieving process may also help them share and address their own feelings of loss and sadness.
Another option, is to join online mesothelioma support groups. As charities supporting families and victims of asbestos diseases, the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (The Meso Foundation) or the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) provide a community for those whose lives have been devastated by these diseases to join together in solidarity. Both organizations have active Facebook communities and host conferences and events throughout the year.
File an Asbestos Lawsuit
Another common feeling that stems from grief is anger. If you lose someone to mesothelioma, it is perfectly normal to be angry about it – especially when you realize that corporate greed and malfeasance in the asbestos industry directly led to your loved one’s cancer. When a person is responsible for another person’s death, the responsible party should expect to face criminal charges. When a corporation is responsible for someone’s death, however, the only recourse is to file a lawsuit against them and win a legal settlement or verdict. In the case of mesothelioma, this generally follows a personal injury or wrongful death claim.
In addition, as you likely know, mesothelioma is an extremely expensive disease. The cost of mesothelioma treatments, transportation, home care, lost wages and funeral expenses can be substantial. Filing a mesothelioma lawsuit may help cover medical expenses associated with specialized treatments not covered by health insurance.
Seeking justice for your loved one who has died from mesothelioma can help with the grieving process. If you are interested in filing an asbestos lawsuit, it is important to speak with an experienced mesothelioma attorney as soon as possible. If you delay, the statute of limitations and other factors may prevent you from obtaining the full compensation you deserve.
Just making the first call can be an important step in addresses the grief of losing someone to mesothelioma or an asbestos-related disease. Click here to schedule a free consultation about your potential mesothelioma case.
Raise Awareness of the Dangers of Asbestos Exposure
Many grieving people feel helpless about their situations. This feeling of helplessness can be quite overwhelming and self-perpetuating. In other words, when a person feels helpless to change their situation, they begin to feel as if nothing they do will change their situation.
One powerful way to counteract this feeling of helplessness is to help others. If you are grieving the loss of someone who died from mesothelioma, you can no longer change the course of his or her prognosis. Instead, you can help educate other people who may not yet know the risks of developing this destructive disease. Perhaps you can help in efforts to research, combat and overcome mesothelioma and asbestos exposure.
Start by contacting patient advocacy and research organizations dedicated to fighting mesothelioma. Mentioned above, the Meso Foundation, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to research, education and advocacy for survivors and families dealing with mesothelioma. Likewise, ADAO is a nonprofit that advocates for awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure.
By supporting these organizations, you may find the strength to combat feelings of helplessness and better deal with the grief from losing someone. Your actions could make a difference for another patient or family grappling with a diagnosis of mesothelioma or asbestos-caused lung cancer or asbestosis.


A Diary Of a Mesowarrior Living With #Mesothelioma and #Asbestos –Ray is 80 today we went to the top of the Shard !!

Happy Birthday Ray

ray on the naughty step

Love this card he had today xx

Yes he is 80 and we cant believe it. Mr Meldrew is 80.

Harminder Bains of Leigh Day had asked us ages ago would we like to go to the Shard for a meeting and we couldn’t go so she arranged it all for Rays birthday.

Harminder was my Lawyer 9 years ago when we couldn’t make a claim but we have been friends ever since. Her Father died with Mesothelioma that is why she is so dedicated to the cases of the Mesowarriors as she is a Mesowarrior as well.

So we travelled to Chatham where we caught a train direct to London Bridge. This station has been closed before Christmas and has had a rebuild.


Exiting from the station I asked Where is the Shard ? Oh dear the man just pointed up and look up and up and up and up !!!


In we went and into the first lift to floor 33. Out of that up then up to the top

Shard facts
The Shard is 309.6 metres, or 1,016 feet, high and is Western Europe’s tallest building.
It is 95 storeys tall, with level 72 the highest habitable floor.
The building is served by 36 lifts, some of which are double-decker.
Its exterior is covered by 11,000 glass panels – equivalent in area to eight football pitches or two and a half Trafalgar Squares.
The length of wiring in the building, 320km or 200 miles, would stretch from London to Paris.
At the busiest point during its construction, 1,450 workers from 60 countries were helping to build The Shard.
Lifts in The Shard travel at speeds of up to 6 metres a second.
A fox was found on the 72nd floor towards the end of construction. The fox, which was nicknamed Romeo by staff, is believed to have survived on food left by construction workers.

My ears popped in the speed of the lift ad when we got out I felt almost seasick but it must have been motion sickness. I walked around like I was on a boat. I said I feel like it’s swaying. Ray said “well it is”” It was windy.  the Shard moves up to 20 inches in high winds.

We walked all around the windows looking at London in Miniature. That’s how small everything looked. People were smaller than ants.


The Belfast, Tower Of London and Tower Bridge.


Looking to Saint Paul’s Cathedral.

I just loved it all and it was Rays birthday present.

Every one was walking around pointing things out one man pointed out Big Ben to me and Wembley Stadium. The sun came out which made it even more wonderful. The Tower London and Tower Bridge glowed.

We finally came back to earth and went to the restaurant that Harminder had booked on floor 32. It was all amazing the views were nearer then.

The waiter helped us to choose the food and he stayed with us and made sure everything was OK.

Then at the end he bought a candle for Ray to blow out and he and the Manager wished Ray a Happy Birthday and was he really 80 or 18. We had met a young lady with a happy 18 badge on and we all had a laugh Ray said no 80 and we have almost been married 60 years. Now telling a young waiter who is in his 20’s that had him laughing and it was hard for him to imagine that.

We finished and caught our train home It had been a good day. There were so many cards in doors from family and the Mesowarriors everyone has given him a great day xx








thank you for donation




A Diary of A Mesowarrior. #Asbestos #Mesothelioma– The Good News -Spring was here this weekend The Bad News Zimbabwe’s produce asbestos again after 10 years closure.

Betula alleghaniensis in spring catkins (Yellow Birch)

We have been so lucky and had spring days where the sun was warm, we went to the country park with the dog who loved running off lead. We cant do that when he is walking round the roads, it was great to see him free again chasing the ball.

Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 14.05.11

He chases the ball but he will not retrieve the ball, no matter how much I plead.

snow drops 2018

Spring flowers are breaking through even my tulips are trying to break out of their winter coats.

We came back and we had company and Birthday cake. I cant believe Ray is 80 this week. Bless him. So I had bought two Birthday cakes One for a family party on Sunday and one for his actually birthday on the 21st and we will be reporting the day with photos of the Shard where we will be on top of the world x

cake 1

Speakers'_Corner_sign,_Singapore_-_20050906Right now for a more serious bit of news.

How can they allow this to happen. Why after closing a Asbestos Mine would you want to reopen it.

Is life so cheap that you start mining Asbestos all over again and kill even more people.

After all the hard work to make out life safe from this deadly material they have a meeting and decide $53 million is required to fully recapitalise the mine. Why didnt they use that money to find treatment for the people they harmed over the years. We live in a very uncaring world at times.

Mr Dhlambeu said Mashaba Mine’s reopening would contribute immensely to the economic development of Masvingo and the national economy at large once full operations resume.

It will also kill the workers and many more people but hey! that doesn’t matter so long as money is going into someone’s pocket.

The fact that money will be needed for Mesothelioma and other asbestos disease’s isnt being thought about but then we will be reaching a peak in 2020 — Dont you bet on that !!!

Josaya-HungweWalter Mswazie Masvingo Correspondent
Mashaba Asbestos Mine in Mashava is set to reopen after the firm managed to mobilise $14 million for recapitalisation, amid indications that more than 1 400 direct jobs will be created when operations reach full throttle.
The company is part of Shabanie-Mashaba Mine, which was Zimbabwe’s sole asbestos producer before operations stopped more than 10 years ago.
The new administration led by President Mnangagwa has been working round the clock to re-open big companies such as Mashaba Mine that have potential to earn millions of dollars in hard currency through exports and creating thousands of jobs directly and indirectly.
Mashaba Mine chief executive Mr Chirandu Dhlambeu last week revealed they had secured part of the $53 million required to fully recapitalise the mine.

He was addressing a delegation led by Masvingo Provincial Affairs Minister Senator Josaya Hungwe that toured the mine.
Mr Dhlambeu said Mashaba Mine’s reopening would contribute immensely to the economic development of Masvingo and the national economy at large once full operations resume.
He said demand for asbestos remained high on the international market after some traditional fibre producers stopped output of the mineral.
“We only need $20 million to kick-start operations at Mashaba Mine, said Mr Dhlambeu.
“We would be operating at 50 percent capacity due to financial constraints, then increase as we are fully recapitalised.
“Before any further exploration, the ore at King Mine here in Mashava will enable us to produce 75 000 tonnes of fibre per year.
“The ore that is there can sustain the mine for the next 17 years. We are confident that the new political dispensation will allow Mashaba Mine to return to its yesteryear glory.

Mr Dhlembeu said the asbestos ore at Mashaba Mine had many other minerals that could be tapped to support its recapitalisation.
Some of the minerals were being sold to sustain the skeletal staff presently working at the closed mine.
“We have nickel, chrome, manganese seams within Mashava,” said Mr Dhlambeu.
“We also have our dump site where we can produce the fibre that we want and we will be able to export it to get the much-needed foreign currency.
“We have also raised some of the required capital from our tenants such as the Great Zimbabwe University. We have so far raised $4 million and we are planning to raise more money through sale of residential land here in Mashava.’’
Masvingo Provincial Affairs Minister Senator Hungwe hailed Mashaba Mine staff for their efforts towards the resuscitation of the mine.
“I am happy with the strides that you are making to see our mine working again, said Minister Hungwe.
“President Mnangagwa has asked us to identify sectors we feel need to be urgently resuscitated for our people to get employment here in Masvingo and Mashaba was our first company.

We also have Cold Storage Company that is lying idle in Masvingo city.”
Sen Hungwe said CSC would be recapitalised by the National Social Security Authority soon.
“NSSA will pour money into CSC and I am told by the management of the company here that it needs about $14 million to resume full operations,” he said.
Mashaba Mine is undergoing de-watering to enable production to resume in the waterlogged shafts.


A Diary Of A Mesowarrior #mesothelioma #asbestos — Talking about the confirm trial and News of A Annual Asbestos Seminar on 21 March 2018 at the Barbican Centre.

news boy

Today was the Telephone Confirm Trial meeting. I love taking part as it good to hear how the trial is going. I can put Mesowarriors questions to the board and get answers for them. It makes us all feel so involved. We must back trials as it is the only way to find treatment for our Mesothelioma.

It was great news to know the trial is opening in so many hospitals. Please talk to your Oncologist and make sure you are passed to the trial team.


This a phase 3 trial. The researchers need 336 (this figure has changed as many patients are in the trial now)
It is a randomised trial. You are put into 1 of 2 groups by a computer. Neither you or your doctor can choose which group you are in. And neither you or your doctor will know which group you are in. This is called a double blinded trial. The groups are:
a dummy drug (placebo )
2 out of 3 people will be in the nivolumab group.

You have nivolumab, or the dummy drug, as a drip into a vein every 2 weeks. You have it over 30 minutes.
You continue treatment for up to a year unless the side effects are too bad or the mesothelioma comes back.
Quality of life
You fill in a questionnaire when you agree to take part and again when you start treatment and then during treatment at:
6 weeks
12 weeks
Then when you finish treatment you complete a questionnaire after:
1 month
6 months
1 year
The questions ask about how you feel and any side effects you might have. This is called a quality of life questionnaire.
The researchers will ask for a sample of your cancer that was removed when you had surgery or a biopsy . You will need to have a biopsy if this isn’t available.
Blood samples for the trial will be taken when you have blood tests as part of your routine care.

Please take the plunge you have nothing to lose.

12kbw 1

Great news for March is that 12KBW have the Annual Conference where Ray and I will be giving a short speech about the MNFoundation.

We are delighted to announce our Annual Asbestos Seminar on 21 March 2018 at the Barbican Centre.
The seminar will be chaired by Harry Steinberg QC with talks from 2pm to 6pm and will be followed by a drinks reception.
Members of our team have continued to act in the leading cases, including Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd, in which Michael Rawlinson QC and Gemma Scott presented a challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Williams v University of Birmingham.


We have now confirmed our full line-up of talks and speakers:
2.00 – 2.10
Welcome and introduction from Harry Steinberg QC
Session 1
2.10 – 2.30
Bussey – an update with Gemma Scott
2.30 – 2.50
Implications for asbestos litigation and low-level exposure, Michael Rawlinson QC
2.50 – 3.10
Women and asbestos, Aliyah Akram
3.10 – 3.20
Mavis Nye, an update on the Foundation
Session 2
3.40 – 4.10
Panel discussion, chaired by Andrew Hogarth QC with Kate Boakes, James Beeton and David Green
4.10 – 4.30
Limitation issues for asbestos lawyers, Patrick Kerr
4.30 – 4.50
Lost years claims, Steven Snowden QC
Session 3
5.10 – 5.30
Recent quantum cases, Michael Brace
5.30 – 5.50
Immunotherapy & ethics, Niall Maclean
5.50 – 6.00
Q&A and closing
There are still places remaining for this seminar; if you, or any of your colleagues, would like to attend .


A Diary Of A Mesowarrior #asbestos #mesothelioma pushing the boundaries

blog pic asbestos_factory_with_filter

I have had my head buried In reading old asbestos cases. So much history you would think that if you can say you worked in a place where other cases have been proved then that is it no messing a person has Mesothelioma just pay the money.

I di work at Thorns Lighting making flash cubes. On a Saturday being a setters mate I blew the large machine down getting rid of all the broken glass that had acclimated through the week.

No cases have gone through the courts so that’s it no claim. I was already contaminated by then anyway with ray coming home covered in the dust. Although Dad had done so as well as he worked in the Submarines. I loved my dad and met him everyday and hugged hello. So the evil dust was most likely there as Dad died from Asbestos disease that I now know was Mesothelioma but he refused all treatment. He hated Doctors and just suffered and died in a chair.

With me being led on a journey through asbestos and mesothelioma I’m fascinated by the older stories. The brave people who lost their lives yet have done so much for asbestos awareness.

We must make sure people learn from the past to be able to have a future.

The recent High Court decision in McGregor v Genco (FC) Limited [2014] EWHC 1376 (QB) is the latest in a run of cases pushing the boundaries on date of knowledge in legacy asbestos claims. It underlines the importance of scrutinising the nature and extent of the exposure on a case by case basis as there might be no legal right to compensation.
In the Genco case, the court found that Marie McGregor, a shop assistant, had been exposed to asbestos for a relatively short period of time over a matter of months in 1976 during renovation works to the store. The precise level of exposure could not be gauged but would have been light. There was a floor to ceiling enclosure around the area of the renovation works but it did not stop dust escaping. Nevertheless, the court held that “at the material time that would be regarded as adequate protection albeit one that would not be acceptable by current day standards”.
The judge found that the department store continued trading throughout all of the works and there was nothing to indicate that the department store ought to have understood the risk that was caused by the operations. The judge was “unable to accept that during 1976…the defendant should have appreciated that the claimant was at risk of an asbestos related injury and that their failure to appreciate and take what would now be regarded as appropriate precautions or to make enquiries about the nature of the dust was negligent”.

What does this mean for insurers and businesses facing legacy claims? Given the body of case law we now have where exposure was not negligent, it is essential that the point is explored in every case – particularly in Scotland where fatal claims are much more expensive than in England.
Here is a quick summary of relevant cases.
The first notable case was Shell Tankers UK Limited V Jeromson (2001) ICR 1223. This was an English Court of Appeal decision from 2001. Shell appealed against a decision at first instance that it ought to have taken precautions against heavy and regular asbestos exposure encountered by its employees. The court found that a prudent employer would have made enquiries about what precautions were necessary to prevent risk of injury from regular and heavy exposure. Shell was also privy to advice that respirators ought to be provided.
The decision at first instance in Jeromson is an interesting starting point because the judge confirmed that a different conclusion might have been reached if the exposure was “limited, intermittent or occasional”.
After Jeromson, the case of Maguire v Harland & Wolf plc and Another [2005] EWCA CIV 1 confirmed that there was no medical or general industrial literature before 1965 that linked mesothelioma to secondary exposure. That case set the benchmark for date of knowledge in secondary exposure cases.
However, since Maguire there have been four cases which have opened the doors to date of knowledge arguments in primary exposure cases.
The first case is Harrington v The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2008] EWHC 2658. In that case, a National Coal Board employee worked in a boiler house for about 12 months during the course of his employment between 1956 and 1958. In his pleadings he said that he de-lagged and re-lagged pipes with asbestos. However, his statement confirmed that fitters removed asbestos lagging. He said that he had to remove and replace asbestos on parts of the boiler he was working on. He did that task around half a dozen times a year and would be working in a confined space where dust could not escape. His statement suggested a reasonable level of exposure. However, much was made at the trial of differing accounts of his exposure made at different times throughout the history of his case. His evidence was inconsistent. In addition, the National Coal Board was able to produce evidence to show that he was not always working in the boiler house, which added further doubt to the reliability of his evidence. The High Court commented that where there was “inconsistent evidence which was contradicted by contemporaneous documents, or was incomprehensible” the evidence could not be accepted.
The High Court found as a matter of fact that the Claimant would not have been exposed to sufficient quantities of asbestos for the National Coal Board to have breached its obligations.
We then had the case of Abraham v G. Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited & Another {2009] EWHC 1958. In that mesothelioma claim, the Claimant was well enough to give oral evidence. He was employed by two Defendant companies both of which were small businesses, one a general builder and the other a general plumbing firm. His first period of employment was from August 1956 until 1961 and then he was employed by the second defendant from 1962/63 until the later part of 1965.
He gave evidence of using asbestos scorch pads whilst soldering pipes and using asbestos string. There was evidence that he might have used Asbestolux board but he was not sure and whilst he had previously indicated in pleadings that he had cut asbestos flues, in his oral evidence he said that he had cut cast iron flues but couldn’t remember cutting asbestos ones.
The Judge commented that the Claimant was an honest and scrupulously fair witness. Having heard all the evidence, the Judge concluded that exposure with the First Defendant was very light and occurred intermittently. With the Second Defendant, exposure was modest and infrequent. Exposure with both could have been avoided because asbestos-free materials were available at the time. Both Defendants and the Claimant produced expert evidence regarding the levels of exposure the Claimant would have encountered.
As far as causation was concerned, notwithstanding the fairly light exposure, the Judge found that it had caused his mesothelioma.
However, when applying the law to the facts, the Judge confirmed that in common law the test was whether or not a risk of injury could have been foreseen by a reasonable and prudent employer based on knowledge he would have expected to have at that time. He concluded that both Defendant businesses could not have foreseen a risk of injury from the level of exposure described. He queried whether a report from the Factory Inspectorate in 1930 (and other booklets circulated to industry) ought to have alerted the Defendant companies to the need to investigate whether or not precautions were required. The Judge commented that if reference was had to Jeromson the answer might be that they should have done something. However, in Jeromson there was significant exposure. In Abraham, there was light exposure. As mentioned above, the Judge at first instance in Jeromson said that a different conclusion might have been reached if exposure was “limited, intermittent or occasional”.
The Judge concluded there was no failure at common law because there was no foreseeable risk of injury from the low levels of exposure. He also concluded that there was no breach of Section 20 of the Factories Act 1961 because there was no activity “likely to be injurious” to health.
In the case of Asmussen v Filtrona United Kingdom Limited {2011] EWHC 1734 the female Claimant worked in a factory that manufactured cigarette filters and crepe paper. She alleged exposure to asbestos from lagging around pipes located 20ft above the factory floor.
Medical evidence confirmed that her mesothelioma had been caused by exposure to asbestos. Her periods of employment were 1955-1960 and then from 1962-1972.
The court decided that the question was whether the risk of injury was one that ought reasonably to have been foreseen by a careful employer. Even by the second period of her employment, the dire consequences of exposure to small quantities of asbestos had not generally been recognised. The issue of foreseeability involved a consideration of state of public knowledge about the risks of exposure to asbestos at the relevant time. On the evidence, the Judge concluded that if the Defendant had sought authoritative advice as to the risk from asbestos lagging in factory pipes, it was unlikely that it would have been advised to take any particular precautions. The Claimant failed.

blog pic 2

The next case is Williams v University of Birmingham & Another [2011] EWCA Civ 1242. In this case, the deceased was a student at the Defendant’s university between 1970 and 1974. He conducted experiments in equipment located in an unventilated tunnel which had pipes lagged with asbestos. The Judge at first instance found the university liable. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The Court of Appeal decided there was nothing to highlight a risk of asbestos related injury at the level of exposure to asbestos fibres encountered by the Claimant. Accordingly, the Defendant could not have foreseen that the deceased would have been exposed to an unacceptable risk of asbestos related injury.
Finally, last year the case of Hill & Billingham v John Barnsley & Son & Others [2013] EWHC 520 was decided. That case underlined the law that has been developing over the last few years. It is now settled law that if there is more than de minimus exposure to asbestos it is important to ask a further question – given the degree of exposure, should it have been reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant company that the Claimant would likely be exposed to a risk of injury? To determine that question we need to explore:-
The Claimant’s actual level of exposure to asbestos;
What knowledge the Defendant ought to have had at that time about the risk imposed by that level of exposure;
Whether, with that knowledge, it had been (or should have been) reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant that, with that level of exposure, the Claimant had been likely to be exposed to the risk of asbestos related injury;
The reasonable steps that the Defendant ought to have taken in light of the Claimant’s exposure to asbestos;
Whether the Defendant had negligently failed to take the necessary reasonable steps.
As mentioned above, the body of case law is overwhelming and as the type of typical exposure in mesothelioma cases is now changing, it is vital to thoroughly investigate whether or not the Claimant’s exposure to asbestos was in fact negligent.


A Dairy Of A Mesowarrior, Can Asbestos Cause Kidney Problems #asbestos #mesothelioma #WorldCancerDay #AsAw2018


I’m writing this blog to bring to people’s attention that Asbestos can be the cause of cancer in other places of the body.

Firstly I want to say I went onto renal failure at 45. I went to Kent and Canterbury as an emergency and they did all the testing. Although they thought I had bower cancer at first an ultrasound showed I had one very shrunk kidney and the other kidney had blown up hugely as I had a back log  of fluid where my kidney wasn’t able to filter as there was a blockage in the urethra. I had to have a wire put through my side and into the kidney and the water spurted out. They fitted a bag and I was strapped to the bed that night.. I walked around carry the bag like a handbag and forgot about as I went to the shop to buy a mag. The horror on a little girls face had me rushing back to the ward very embarrassed.

I was sent to Kent and Canterbury and they operated making me a new urethra. I returned home and recovered and lived a normal life again.

Now what if they had really tested the lump they cut out with the Urethra I wonder if that was caused by asbestos.

I often think that but now reading this article I really wonder.

It is know that asbestos can cause so many cancers.

Other cancers that are loosely associated with asbestos exposure include esophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, kidney cancer and throat cancer laryngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer sclc. Studies have reported various degrees of success linking these cancers to exposure. Asbestos may increase a person’s risk for these cancers, but it is not a proven risk factor.

What a coincidence this man worked in the Chatham Dockyard when Ray was there.

Kidney man

Asbestos Compensation Claim win for kidney patient
Posted on January 31, 2018 by Howard Bonnett

An asbestos compensation claim has secured five figure settlement for a man with severe kidney disease.
Asbestos Compensation Case Facts
Our client Mr B came to us at the age of 77. He been diagnosed with diffuse pleural thickening. This had been found during scans he had for his major health issues.
Mr B had worked at the Chatham dockyard from 1955 to September 1962 as an apprentice and then qualified boilermaker. During the course of his work he was regularly exposed to large amounts of asbestos dust and fibres. He was not exposed to asbestos anywhere else. He thought he would escape asbestos disease.
Sadly about five years ago he was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. He requires constant dialysis. His activity is much reduced. However investigations by his doctors found asbestos related diffuse pleural thickening.
What did we do?
We got to work finding a medical expert to prove that this thickening was causing additional disability. The expert accepted this and produced a report.
However the expert thought that Mr B would not have very long to live at all. We did not accept this and worked with the Claimant and his treating doctor. We got together evidence which helped our expert to project a longer life expectancy for him.
As a result we were then able to put this evidence to the defendants. From this we have achieved a five figure provisional damages settlement. This means that if Mr B gets worse in the future he can come back for further damages.

Asbestos compensation can still be paid even if you have chronic other health problems
Case comment
Howard Bonnett, Director and Manager of Corries specialist team commented
“This was a pleasing asbestos compensation win. Mr B is sadly one of far too many former naval dockyard workers suffering with asbestos disease.
The key issues in this case was to make sure that
Firstly we were able to prove that he was disabled due to asbestos and;
Secondly by being able to show that his life expectancy was not affected by his other conditions meant that we could better discuss with and negotiate with the defendant for more money and a provisional damages settlement. This will protect him and his family should he ever get cancer due to asbestos.
The case has been useful to remind asbestos lawyers we have to be careful to look at all aspects, question our own experts and work with our client and their treating doctors to make sure we get the best result.”