Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Rights of Mesothelioma Families In Scotland

In a pivotal ruling, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal by Scottish Power UK PLC, affirming that the family of Robert Crozier, who died of the asbestos related disease, mesothelioma, is entitled to claim damages under section 5 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011. 

The decision clarifies the scope of the mesothelioma exception and reinforces the rights of bereaved families.

Background: Veale and others v Scottish Power UK Plc 
Robert Crozier sadly died of mesothelioma in 2018. He was negligently exposed to asbestos during his employment with Scottish Power between 1969 and 1992. In 2014 he settled a claim for pleural plaques and asbestosis on a full and final basis. Although he had not been diagnosed with mesothelioma at the time, his condition carried a known risk of developing the disease. The effect of the settlement was to discharge Scottish Power from further liability to Mr Crozier in the event that he went on to develop mesothelioma. 

Following Mr Crozier’s death from mesothelioma, his family sought damages from Scottish Power under the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 for their loss of society, grief and sorrow. Section 5 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011  provides a specific exception if a person has died from mesothelioma to the general rule that claims settled during a person’s lifetime extinguishes further liability in the event of their death.

The section 5 exception applies if three of the conditions are met. Scottish Power accepted that two conditions were satisfied. However, it argued that the condition in section 5(1)(a) – which requires the defender’s liability to pay damages to the deceased to be discharged by the deceased before their death – was not met because Mr Crozier was not suffering from mesothelioma at the time when his claim was settled.

Scottish Power’s argument was rejected by both the Outer and the Inner House of the Court of Session. The Inner House granted Scottish Power permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal by Scottish Power.

The Supreme Court rejected Scottish Power’s argument that the phrase “liability to pay damages” in section 5(1)(a) must refer to a liability to pay damages for mesothelioma, and not to a liability to pay damages for personal injury more generally. Scottish Power’s case is that no such liability existed at the time when Mr Crozier’s claim was settled, because he had not yet developed mesothelioma. Accordingly, the liability could not have been discharged.

The Supreme Court held that liability was discharged by the settlement Scottish Power reached with Mr Crozier. The phrase “liability to pay damages” in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 2011 Act must have the same meaning in all three sections because they are inter-connected. Section 5 creates an exception to the general rule in section 4(2) and uses exactly the same language. 

The Supreme Court considered some of the background materials to the 2011 Act. Sections 3 to 5 of the 2011 Act re-enact provisions originally found in the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). Before the 2007 Act was passed, mesothelioma sufferers faced a dilemma: they could either pursue their own damages claim before they died, or they could leave their executor and relatives to make a claim after their death, usually for a much higher value. Most sufferers chose not to pursue their own claims because they did not want to disadvantage their families. The legislation was designed to remove this dilemma. 

The Supreme Court held that the meaning of the words used in the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 are clear and unambiguous. The courts cannot rewrite legislation. The Supreme Court also recognised that limiting the section 5 exception to individuals who knew they were suffering from mesothelioma when their claims were settled would have excluded those who did not yet know they had developed the disease. It would also have excluded people like Mr Crozier, who developed mesothelioma after Scottish Power’s liability was discharged. It is understandable that the legislation should have been drafted in a way which avoided the need to draw distinctions of this kind

Scottish Power argued that it is absurd that Mr Crozier’s family should be able to claim for loss suffered as a result of his mesothelioma, when his settlement with Scottish Power meant that he could not make such a claim himself. The Supreme Court response was that this reflects the purpose of section 5, which is designed to enable relatives to bring a claim even after the wrongdoer’s liability to the deceased has been discharged. That is the whole point of the exception. 

Impact on Mesothelioma Sufferers and Their Families
This ruling is a major victory for families affected by mesothelioma. It confirms that relatives can claim damages for loss of society even if their loved one had previously settled a claim for an asbestos-related condition in their lifetime. The decision provides clarity and reassurance to those navigating the complex legal landscape of asbestos compensation.

For mesothelioma sufferers, the ruling alleviates the pressure to choose between personal compensation and preserving family claims. It recognises the interconnected nature of asbestos-related conditions and treats them as part of a continuum — a principle long accepted in Scottish law.

The decision also affirms the importance of section 5 as a humane and practical exception to the “one action rule.” It ensures that families are not penalised for the timing or nature of earlier settlements and that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

While this decision will impact Scottish law only, it will have far reaching impact on families living in the rest of the UK or abroad if their loved one developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while working in Scotland. 

It is common for mesothelioma sufferers to have been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers, especially if they moved around the UK for work. At Irwin Mitchell we have specialists nationwide who can help determine if there was negligent exposure to asbestos in Scotland and whether it is beneficial to pursue a claim in Scotland where the law may be more favourable.  

Find out more about our expertise in asbestos claims.