Mesothelioma

His case was included in the test litigation to show that there were sufferers from pleural plaques who had high risks of future disease, and consequently relatively high general damages and future financial loss claims.First hearingThe test cases first came before Mr Justice Holland at the High Court in December 2004.

In his judgment, handed down on 15 February 2005, he agreed that pleural plaques were an 'injury' to be compensated in English law (the actionability point).

He then took a broad-brush approach with regards to the quantum of damages.

He assessed the final award of general damages in Hindson's case at £7,000 - the same bracket as all other pleural plaques cases, despite his younger age, higher future risks and high potential loss of income if he did contract asbestos cancer.

He rejected any claim for prospective financial loss that might arise with the onset of malignant disease.

He held that the chance of that loss, or any part of it arising in the future, was "no more than speculative".Hindson appealed, arguing that a risk of mortality from asbestos injuries cancer at around 20 per cent was not too speculative with respect to causing future loss of income and that the judge had not taken account of his high future risks in assessing general damages at £7,000.The defendants in nine of the other cases appealed ...

Read more...