Kieran Mallen began experiencing symptoms of shortness of breath and shoulder pain in March 2016, aged just 42. His symptoms continued and in May 2016 he was admitted to A&E. On admission to hospital, it was discovered that he had a pleural effusion in one of his lungs. The fluid was drained and tested but did not reveal a malignancy. Kieran’s condition continued to deteriorate. His doctors suspected that he had mesothelioma, but he sadly died before it could be confirmed.

Following Kieran’s death, a post mortem examination was carried out which revealed mesothelioma. Kieran’s partner contacted a firm of specialist asbestos disease solicitors but whilst they assisted her with applications for government benefits she was entitled to due to Kieran’s premature death, they advised they could not assist with a legal claim for compensation as there was not enough evidence to prove how Kieran had been exposed to asbestos.

Kieran had subcontracted for Chameleon Refurbishments, a company that refurbished restaurants for a well-known chain in London. He didn’t start working for them until 1999 – the year asbestos was banned. Kieran had been so poorly that he had been unable to give much information prior to his death but when his consultant had told him that he may have a cancer due to asbestos, Kieran told his partner about a job he did on a restaurant at Exmouth Market where asbestos had been found. Kieran was involved in stripping out the premises and refurbishing them. During this time, asbestos was discovered. Kieran reported it to his boss but told his partner that he had been told to carry on with the work until an asbestos removal company was brought in.

Kieran’s partner Debbie came to us and sought a second opinion from Jennifer Seavor about whether a legal claim might be possible. Jennifer took a detailed statement from Debbie regarding her recollections of conversations she had with Kieran about his exposure. Debbie was also able to provide some names of colleagues who had worked with Kieran at Chameleon Refurbishments. We were able to trace some of these witnesses who were able to provide statements. Frustratingly most of the witnesses came on to the jobs later in the contract once the gutting and demolition work had been done. Others only started working for the company years later, when the work the company did became more cosmetic in nature rather than full-scale demolition and refurbishment.

There was an added complexity because Kieran hadn’t been employed by Chameleon Refurbishments at the time it was alleged, he had come into contact with asbestos. He had been employed by the company at a later date but there was no evidence to suggest he had been exposed to asbestos during that later period.

A letter of claim was sent to the insurers of the company, as the company had since dissolved. We contended that Kieran had effectively been an employee during the first period of work when it was alleged, he had been exposed to asbestos as the nature of the relationship between him and the company was the same as when he later became employed formally. Medical evidence was also obtained to link Kieran’s alleged exposure with the development of his mesothelioma.

Our team continued to carry out extensive investigations into the premises at Exmouth Market to obtain documents relating to the building including possible asbestos surveys. Other jobs Kieran did were considered too.  Meanwhile, further efforts were made to contact and take statements from colleagues who had worked with Kieran at the time. One witness provided crucial evidence. He was an independent contractor but told us about the sites and how asbestos was often found. Other witnesses told us that health and safety was not very good and that jobs were always time-pressured meaning corners were cut.

While we continued to gather evidence, court proceedings were issued, and Chameleon Refurbishments was restored to the Register of Companies so proceedings could be served.

The company did not admit liability. They served witness evidence of their own – statements from three of the former directors of the company who contended that health and safety practices were followed, and that Kieran would not have been exposed to asbestos as alleged.

The Company also obtained a medical report from an expert of their own who called into question whether radiotherapy treatment which Kieran had received when he was young for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma may have caused his mesothelioma. However, Kieran also had pleural plaques – scars on the lining of the lungs, which can only be caused by asbestos. In light of this, the medical experts eventually agreed that on the balance of probabilities Kieran’s mesothelioma had been caused by asbestos exposure.

An offer of settlement was made to the Defendant and at the same time we put forward a formal request for further information under the Civil Procedure Rules to the Defendants' witnesses to question them as to the contents of their statements. This put pressure on the Defendant and they eventually decided to enter into negotiations regarding settlement and the claim settled for a six-figure sum.

Jennifer said: "Kieran’s case is tragic. He was only 43 when he lost his life to mesothelioma. His partner approached me after being told by another solicitor that there was not enough evidence to pursue a claim. Kieran was exposed to asbestos when the dangers of exposure were well-known and following the ban of the use of asbestos in this country. Kieran should have been protected at work, but he was not. My team has spent several years trying to trace witnesses and locate historic documents to build a case against the Company he worked for. Sadly, the claim cannot bring Kieran back but I am pleased we have been able to hold the Company to account and recover compensation for his partner and family. Kieran's story shows how people are being exposed to asbestos even now. Whilst asbestos remains in buildings the risk remains."

At the end of the claim Kieran's partner Debbie said: “I cannot recommend RWK enough. They have worked tirelessly with a belief that there would be a positive outcome on my case. My solicitor, Jennifer, is so knowledgeable and passionate about issues surrounding my case, she also taught me a lot. RWK Goodman are compassionate and professional.”