Court rejects damages claim over alleged exposure to asbestos during tenancy

A High Court judge has rejected a claim for damages brought by a widow who argued that her husband had suffered malignant mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos during his tenancy of a council-owned property.

The case of Lugay v London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham [2017] EWHC 1823 (QB) followed the death of Frederick Lugay on 19 July 2012, at the age of 73.

In the High Court Mrs Justice O’Farrell said that although Mr Lugay died of a myocardial infarction, it was common ground based on the medical evidence that his death had been accelerated by four years by reason of malignant mesothelioma.

His widow sought damages of £138,729 under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in respect of the death of her husband.

Her case was that the malignant mesothelioma was caused by Mr Lugay's exposure to asbestos during the course of his tenancy of Flat 34, Barton House, Wandsworth Bridge Road, London, a property owned by Hammersmith & Fulham Council.

The council accepted that Mr Lugay developed mesothelioma, and that the effect of that disease accelerated his death by four years, but disputed any breach of duty or any causative exposure through occupancy of the flat.

Dismissing the claim, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the claimant had “failed to prove that the defendant was negligent or that Mr Lugay's malignant mesothelioma was caused by occupancy and/or use of the flat at Barton House.”