header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 November 2014 / Laura Trezise
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Exposing liability

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
tresize

Laura Trezise outlines a successful defence of an asbestos related claim pursued under the Occupiers Liability Act

In Macarthy (Executor of the Estate of Heward, deceased) v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWHC 3183 (QB), [2014] ALL ER (D) 105 (Oct), Mr Heward worked for a family business, DH Allan & Sons Ltd (the third party), initially as an employee and from 1981 as managing director. Their business was shop-fitting. The only alleged exposure to asbestos dust was while the deceased was working for DH Allan at stores owned and operated by Marks & Spencer plc. Mr Heward died of mesothelioma in 2009. A claim was pursued by his estate and that of his wife, alleging that such exposure had caused his death.

It was alleged that the deceased’s exposure had occurred during two distinct periods. In the first period, he worked as a joiner at the M&S store in York for three weeks in the summer of 1967. The deceased worked alongside specialist contractors, Darlington Insulation, who carried out installation of asbestos ceiling tiles.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll