UK: Low Level Asbestos Exposure

Last Updated: 26 November 2009
Article by Kieran Jones and Gloria Ginvert

There are increasing numbers of claims being intimated from Claimants suffering from mesothelioma who allege low level bystander exposure. However, caution needs to be exercised before automatically attributing causation for the condition to specific alleged exposure, rather than taking a close look at environmental, background exposure.

It is particularly difficult to rebut allegations of negligent exposure involving low dose cases which involve occupations not typically associated with exposure to asbestos.

One such example could be those cases where claimants are increasingly seeking to attach liability for low level asbestos exposure to individual schools and local authorities, despite the likelihood of asbestos being present in a wide variety of locations. Where there are allegations of exposure to asbestos occurring many years previously whilst attending or working at schools, there is often little information with regard to potential exposure there and elsewhere. Differentiating between these competing potential causes can be impossible, or at least extremely difficult.

Perhaps the most emotive instance is that of 28 year old Leigh Carlisle who tragically died last summer and whom it is believed developed mesothelioma either from her primary school or by taking a short cut through a factory yard where asbestos was cut.

It would be helpful if the Health & Safety Executive provided greater clarity on background asbestos levels in the UK's public buildings if Defendants are to have any chance against spiralling low level exposure claims. There is certainly a need to look closely at the general issue of background asbestos levels so that greater certainty can be reached on an individual Claimant's likelihood of exposure.

In 2006, the Health & Safety Executive Watch Committee published an assessment of the potential exposure of teachers and others from the use of drawing pins on asbestos insulating board in a school classroom setting, but the scientific methodology employed was called into question.

In theory, given the appropriate facts and evidence, it should be possible to argue that, even though the Defendant may have exposed a Claimant/Deceased to asbestos and even if that exposure was negligent, it did not materially increase the risk of the mesothelioma developing (the causation test in Fairchild) because it did not materially exceed the background level of asbestos in the community as a whole. However, recent case law would suggest that such a defence is difficult to succeed in the current climate, particularly where post 1965 exposure is involved.

In Pinder v Cape Plc [2006], the Claimant, John Pinder, developed mesothelioma as a result of playing in an asbestos waste tip as a child in the 1950's. The High Court rejected Pinder's claim that:

  1. The Defendants could not have foreseen he, or other children would play within its grounds, which was, at the time, controlled by the local Council.
  2. The Defendants were under no duty to provide advice to the local Council regarding the safe disposal of asbestos it had delivered to the tip.

The key factor in this case was that exposure was prior to 1965 when the risks from such exposure were not appreciated and it was outside the workplace.

In Jones v Metalbox Limited and Crown Cork & Seal Limited [2007], the court examined the likelihood of mesothelioma being caused by limited exposure to chrysotile (white asbestos). The deceased's exposure was described as:

"Small amounts of dust invisible to the naked eye" arising from the asbestos conveyor belts on a production line".

The Judge found that there was not a threshold exposure to chrysotile below which there was not an increased risk and that the Asbestos Regulations [1969] standards were merely guidelines as to the levels of dust that would avoid a prosecution. They did not lay down safe levels of exposure. The Judge further stated that the general view of national and international bodies is that there is no threshold below which exposure to chrysotile can be regarded as safe and that if a person is exposed to chrysotile at levels above those found in the environment at large, then he is satisfied that that person has an increased risk in respect of mesothelioma. On this basis, it was held that the exposure was "more than trivial" and therefore increased the Claimant's risk of contracting mesothelioma.

In Brett v University of Reading [2007], although the Deceased was likely to have been exposed with a number of employers, the Claimant only elected to sue the Defendant. It was alleged that the deceased was exposed to low levels of asbestos dust whilst supervising work, which included the removal of asbestos from an old library at the university in the 1980's.

Whilst there was evidence that the deceased came into contact with asbestos, there was no evidence the Defendant had not taken the necessary precautions or otherwise failed to discharge its duties. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the development of mesothelioma does not inevitably lead to a conclusion that there must have been a breach of duty which the Claimant must in turn prove. However, the facts are very specific in this case. Certainly Sedley LJ, also made it clear that had the Claimant/Deceased only been exposed during his employment with Reading University;

"the inference that this is where it did occur will be practicably irresistible"

and further commented;

"any unlawful exposure of the employee to airborne asbestos will ordinarily constitute such a contribution if mesothelioma developed".

As such, despite the lack of evidence, had the deceased only alleged exposure with one Defendant, the suggestion is the Court would have inferred the Claimant had been unlawfully exposed by the Defendant.

Another example of a case involving very low levels of exposure is the 2009 decision in Diane Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council which held that the local authority was liable in negligence to the Claimant, the Judge having found that her exposure to asbestos dust was likely to have had occurred from ceiling tiles in a secondary school where she was a pupil in the 1970's.

Despite there being no specific measurement of the duration of exposure, it was held that the exposure (although the Judgment frequently referred to the "risk" of exposure rather than "actual" exposure) had been more than de minimis and had materially increased the chance that she would develop mesothelioma later in life.

The Judge commented :

"The fact that mesothelioma can be triggered by very small quantities of asbestos dust does have the consequence that it may in principle have been caused by asbestos encountered in the general environment or from some other unknown cause. Mr Feeny, on behalf of the Defendant, referred to research by Julian Peto and Others 'Occupational, Domestic & Environmental Mesothelioma Risks in Britain', a case controlled study, published in March 2009, to show that in a high proportion of cases, it had not been possible to identify a particular source of asbestos exposure. Thus, even if the Claimant's mesothelioma was probably caused by asbestos, this could have been encountered in the general environment or from some other unknown source".

In spite of this and taking the advice of Maurice Kay LJ in Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited v Cox [2007], he did not consider any specific measurements of the duration was necessary. On the issue of measurement, he referred to Dr Rudd's evidence:

"It will be a matter for the court to determine on the basis of the evidence presented by witnesses and consultant engineers from which source or sources Mrs Willmore sustained significant asbestos exposure where 'significant' is defined in accordance with the definition adopted in relation to mesothelioma causation by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in their 1996 report (Cm 3467|): 'a level above that commonly found in the air in buildings and the general outdoor environment'. It would be appropriate for the Court to conclude that each such exposure materially increased the risk that she would develop mesothelioma".

One might however ask how a Court can determine if the level was in excess of building and environmental levels if there is insufficient guidance on background levels and no specific measurement of alleged negligent exposure is deemed to be necessary in these cases.

In Willmore It was held that the Claimant was negligently and causatively exposed to a risk of asbestos fibres in the following circumstances which were not de minimis.

  1. From the work done to the ceiling in the T shaped corridor and the temporary stacking there of ceiling tiles (some of which were broken or chipped) over a few days;
  2. From damage to ceiling tiles by the misbehaviour of pupils removing them and pushing bags and items of clothing up into the ceiling void;
  3. From vandalism of the girls' toilets in the junior block and the storage of damaged tiles there for a period of about two weeks.

A case in contrast is that of Terence Charles Abraham v (1) G Ireson & Son (Properties) Limited (2) Stanley Reynolds (t/a Reynolds a& Spademan (A Firm) [2009]

In this case, the Claimant was a plumber's apprentice and then an apprentice with the First Defendant. He worked later for the Second Defendant, a plumbing firm and left in 1965, so there was a further period of exposure to 1965.

Exposure with the First Defendant was light and intermittent. It was more frequent with the Second Defendant but still modest and infrequent. Exposure was likely to have been causative and could have been avoided because alternative asbestos free materials were available at the material time.

It was held that neither the First nor the Second Defendants could before the publication of the Newhouse and Thompson paper in 1965, have been aware that the asbestos dust was likely to be injurious to the claimant. As they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known of the risk of injury arising from the Claimant's exposure to the dust, having no special degree of knowledge, it could not have been reasonably practicable for them to take any steps to protect him from it.

Whilst this case involved low level exposure, there was not an issue as to whether the exposure was causative and therefore whether environmental exposure was more likely. The determinative facts in this case were the period of exposure, the level of exposure and given that level, the knowledge of the Defendants.

Non work place exposure was however of relevance to the issue of the Defendant's knowledge as the Judge considered that having regard to the fact that at the time asbestos products were still in use in domestic and other everyday settings, even if the Defendants had sought advice on the Claimant's limited use of asbestos at the time, the response would in all probability have been that there was no need for the Defendants to be concerned about any risk of injury from the use of those products. The First and Second Defendants were found not to be negligent.

Clearly if Defendants are going to have any success in defending low level asbestos exposure claims, more guidance as to environmental levels is required, so that alleged culpable exposure can be demonstrated to be minimal, although it would appear a court will be keen to find an alternative source if there is evidence of above de minimis exposure elsewhere after 1965.

This issue is of increasing importance, bearing in mind the recent Peto research in April last year, which revealed that the number of population deaths due to mesothelioma could be significantly different from the current HSE projections.

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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.