UK: Two Recent Mesothelioma Liability Judgments In Scotland: Gibson & Ors v Babcock; Thacker & Ors v North British Steel

Last Updated: 10 September 2018
Article by Andrew Forsyth

Two recent Court of Session decisions determined liability for asbestos-related illness: John Samuel Thacker & Ors v North British Steel [2018] CSOH 73 ("Thacker") and Karen Gibson & Ors v Babcock International Limited [2018] CSOH 78 ("Gibson"). Reading the two cases together tells us a lot about how the law is developing in relation to asbestos litigation.  


Thacker was brought by relatives of the deceased, Mrs. Thacker, who worked in the defender's foundry in Armadale as an office clerk between 1963 and 1968. Mrs. Thacker developed mesothelioma and died in September 2014. She was said to have been exposed to asbestos frequently when walking through the factory in the exercise of her administrative duties.

Gibson was a secondary exposure claim, brought by the relatives of the deceased wife of a former employee of the defender. The deceased was exposed to asbestos when laundering her husband's work clothes during the 1960s. She died of mesothelioma in August 2015, while the employee himself had died of a non-asbestos-related illness in 2008.

Key points – Thacker

The focus in Thacker was on the two part liability test under s.63(1) of the Factories Act 1961 ("the 1961 Act"). Under that subsection, the duty on an employer to ensure that "all practicable measures shall be taken to protect the persons employed against inhalation of the dust" arises where:

  • any "injurious" dust or fume is given off in quantities that are likely to cause harm to employees;
  • where there is given off "any substantial quantity of dust of any kind".

The court's interpretation of the second part of the test was that as long as the quantity of dust given off is "substantial", the duty upon employers is engaged – whether or not the particular type of dust is one that is known to cause harm, such as asbestos.  The question of whether the release of dust is "substantial" is tested at the point of release, not at inhalation.

This approach meant that when the court found that substantial quantities of dust were given off, the burden of proof shifted from the pursuer, and the defender was required to prove that it had taken all "practicable measures" to protect the deceased against inhalation in order to avoid liability. It was not for the pursuers to prove that the defender had failed to do so.

The defender led limited evidence on ventilation, damping down of surfaces and the ad-hoc provisions of masks; however the court concluded that the defender had failed to prove that it had taken all practicable steps in discharge of its duty, and liability attached. That masks had been provided to some employees was considered by the court to be evidence that a practical measure had been put in place to some extent, but had not been extended to all employees, such as by the late Mrs Thacker. Causation was not in dispute.

Despite the pursuer succeeding under the second part of statutory test, the judge (Lady Wise) went on to consider liability under the first part. All parties were agreed that this was essentially a traditional reasonable foreseeability test. It involved consideration of expert evidence as to the likely exposure levels of the deceased and whether, during her employment from circa 1962 – 1968 the defenders ought to have had knowledge of the risk of harm to the deceased, given that level of exposure.

The Court of Appeal case of Maguire v Harland & Wolff Plc [2005] PIQR P21 is relied upon in Scotland as authority for 1965 being the date of knowledge for secondary and intermittent exposure. It was not necessary for the court to consider in Thacker whether the defenders had the requisite guilty knowledge prior to 1965, on the basis that exposure continued until around 1968 and, having already concluded that the defenders' safety systems were inadequate, it was held that the pursuers also satisfied the first stage of the test under the 1961 Act.

Key points – Gibson

In Gibson, the Factories Act 1961 did not apply as the deceased was not an employee of the defender, meaning that the action was brought under the common law only.

Counsel for the defender argued that, in order to succeed, the pursuers would have to prove i) that the deceased's husband was so heavily exposed to asbestos while working for the defender that he took home significant levels of asbestos on his boiler suit and/or clothes; ii) that the defender ought to have had knowledge about the risks posed by the presence of asbestos at that level; and iii) that with that knowledge, it ought to have been reasonably foreseeable to the defender that asbestos-related injury would arise from domestic exposure.

The judge (Lady Carmichael) disagreed and held that "there was no established, safe level of asbestos exposure, and there was knowledge that secondary exposure carried with it a risk of fatal injury". Accordingly, the pursuers only had to prove i) that the deceased's husband was exposed to so much dust that the defender must have known that he would take it home on his clothes; and ii) that the defender failed to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos to the deceased to the greatest extent possible.

This is essentially a re-statement at common law of the second part of the test at s.63(1) of the 1961 Act. It confirms that the duty was on an employer to reduce the risk of exposure not only to its employees but also to those who lived with its employees.  

Having identified the legal test, the pursuers then needed to lead evidence to satisfy it. They faced significant hurdles in doing so. The employee, the injured party and the third party witnesses had all died at various stages prior to trial without affidavits being obtained.

There was no direct documentary evidence of the deceased's exposure. Hearsay evidence was led from a paralegal from Thompsons solicitors who had taken a brief telephone statement from the deceased prior to her death. The pursuers' expert occupational hygienist was only instructed two weeks prior to the trial.

Rather than submitting a full expert report, the occupational hygienist produced a letter giving his headline views which he then departed from when giving evidence in person; and a key document that he relied on in his oral evidence was not disclosed to the court.

The defenders relied on challenging the pursuers' evidence rather than setting out to prove a positive defence of having taken adequate precautions. They submitted that the pursuers' claim should not be given "an additional boost" by the court taking a relaxed approach to the burden of proof of the disputed facts. In response, the judge stressed that assessing evidence in these cases is "fraught with uncertainty". She ultimately considered that the pursuers had done enough to prove exposure of the employee and secondary exposure of the deceased through a combination of the hearsay evidence of the paralegal and the occupational hygienist's evidence. The pursuer's claim therefore succeeded.

Wider considerations

Both Thacker and Gibson involved consideration of guilty knowledge. The October 1965 date for secondary/low level exposure has effectively been endorsed despite contention in Gibson for the relevant date to be1960.

Gibson has received significant local press interest. The significance of the case has not been reported entirely accurately. It was not a landmark judgment in establishing the competence of secondary exposure claims. Secondary exposure cases have long been settled in Scotland and the competency of such claims was not an issue before the court, albeit it was the first actual liability judgement we are aware of in Scotland involving secondary exposure.

The most noteworthy aspect of Gibson for those involved in the defence of asbestos litigation is the   court's approach to the evidential challenges posed by these types of action. It is a reminder that, despite a paucity of evidence, pursuers may well be given some leeway in seeking to prove a case. Whilst a defender is entitled to put a pursuer to proof, there was some veiled criticism by the judge of the failure to agree that the employee would have been exposed to asbestos. This is in the context of boiler making, a process well known to have had a significant history of asbestos exposure in the 1960s. Lady Carmichael called for insurers to exercise "cooperation and candour" in such cases rather than requiring pursuers to expend disproportionate resources evidencing exposure.

It should be stressed that both Thacker and Gibson were claims for damages resulting from mesothelioma where causation was not in dispute. In cases concerning asbestosis or lung cancer, the pursuers would still have required to lead evidence to prove that the actual exposure levels of the pursuer/deceased was sufficient to be causative, in reference to the Helsinki criteria.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions