Mr C was diagnosed with mesothelioma in the autumn of 2010 when he was aged 71 and his wife Mrs C was 70. He had worked for Babcock and Wilcox (boiler manufacturers) as a service engineer in the 1960’s with extensive exposure to asbestos in power stations and other industrial locations. He remained with B&W for the rest of his career. When he was diagnosed the couple’s eldest daughter was very unwell with a brain tumour. She died early in 2011, leaving behind 2 young children.

After Mr C died in January 2012 Mrs C consulted solicitors but felt overwhelmed and unable to continue with the claim at that stage. The family’s other daughter then developed MS. Late in 2019 Mrs C consulted Helen Childs. Bespoke insurance was needed because of the limitation issue. The claim was issued in early 2020 and proceeded towards a trial on limitation as a preliminary issue. Considerable evidence of previous claims against the same defendants was produced, and they were unable to identify any prejudice in investigating the claim in 2019/20 as opposed to 2010/15. However they argued that the unless Mrs C had lacked capacity the court should not exercise its discretion to extend the usual 3 year time limit, which is a misunderstanding of the factors the court should take into account.

The normal time limit for bringing a claim for mesothelioma is usually 3 years from the date of death. However the court has discretion to extend the time limit. The question of whether or not it is likely to exercise that discretion usually boils down to whether or not the defendants are likely to find it more difficult to investigate the claim later than they would have done if it had been brought in time. Despite the evidence of many similar claims being sued by these defendants, including one for a man who worked as a service engineer at the same power station as Mr C just 6 months earlier, solicitors for B & W refused to make any concessions or offers at all until just a couple of days before the trial when a barrister was instructed.

The settlement of her claim meant that Mrs C could help provide for her daughter who had MS, and be confident she could stay in the home she and her husband had lived in for many years. The claim only settled on the very eve of the trial.