The Supreme Court has reduced an award to plumber Dermot Swaine from £60,000 to £45,000, allowing the Commissioners for Public Works in Ireland’s appeal on aggravated damages. It left the £45,000 award for general damages in place.
Swaine worked in the Leinster House complex from about 1981 or 1982 and, to a lesser extent, in what was then the Department of Industry and Commerce. The judgment says he was exposed over a lengthy period to large quantities of asbestos dust. He did not suffer an immediate physical illness, but was told the risk of contracting mesothelioma was “very remote”. By the time of his High Court trial, he was suffering from a chronic reactive anxiety neurosis.
The High Court found that the condition resulted from the defendants’ negligence and awarded £15,000 for pain and suffering to date, £30,000 for future pain and suffering, and a further £15,000 in aggravated damages. The defendants had admitted liability to pay damages, but contested whether aggravated damages were justified.
The Supreme Court described the employers’ failure to take elementary safety precautions as “negligence of the grossest kind”. It noted that they knew of the asbestos risks, provided protective clothing and headgear to contractors handling lagging, but not to Swaine and his fellow employees, and gave Swaine no warning.
However, the court held that the seriousness of negligence, by itself, did not justify increasing compensatory damages through an aggravated award. It said the circumstances identified in an earlier judgment on aggravated damages did not typically arise in negligence cases. The court left open whether aggravated damages could ever be awarded in an action for negligence or nuisance, saying that question should be considered in a case where it was fully argued.
This was a limited appeal concerning aggravated damages. The court said the defendants had admitted liability and the case had proceeded as an assessment of damages. It allowed the appeal on the contested aggravated-damages issue and substituted an award of £45,000. It did not revisit the underlying finding of liability or the £45,000 general-damages assessment.