Global asbestos justice: South African asbestos victims win right to sue Cape PLC in U.K. courts

Our plain-English summary of Global asbestos justice: South African asbestos victims win right to sue Cape PLC in U.K. courts, by L. Kazan-Allen (International Journal of Health Services, 2001).

The study

• Author: L. Kazan-Allen
• Journal: International Journal of Health Services
• Published: 2001;31(4):815-21
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

A ruling by Britain's House of Lords in July 2000 opened the doors of the English courts to foreign plaintiffs injured by the overseas operation of British companies and their subsidiaries. The ruling authorized 3,000 South African asbestos victims to continue their case in the U.K. courts against the multinational British company Cape PLC, which produced both raw asbestos and asbestos products in South Africa. The Lords sided with the asbestos victims in refusing to transfer the case to South Africa, as requested by Cape. This decision was a reversal of fortune for Cape and has implications for other British multinationals that may be called upon to defend their overseas actions domestically.

In plain English

This was not a scientific study but a report and commentary on a court case. It described a unanimous House of Lords ruling of July 20, 2000. The ruling let 3,000 South African asbestos victims continue their case against the British company Cape PLC in U.K. courts, refusing Cape's request to move it to South Africa. The Law Lords found that in South Africa the plaintiffs would probably lack the legal representation and expert evidence needed, which would amount to a denial of justice. Cape's South African operations had included a crocidolite mine at Koegas and a mill at Prieska. The article traced several years of proceedings, including a South African government submission to the Lords. The author stated that Cape had paid no compensation to its South African workers, and that 82 asbestos dumps had been identified in the Northern Cape. Cape said it would contest the claims vigorously. The author concluded that the ruling had implications for other British multinationals.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Report and commentary on a legal case, not a research study; based on court rulings, company and law-firm statements, and news reports
• Who was studied: 3,000 South African asbestos victims suing the British company Cape PLC (formerly the Cape Asbestos Company Ltd.) in U.K. courts; ruling dated July 20, 2000
• Exposure: Occupational or environmental exposure to asbestos from Cape's South African operations, which produced raw asbestos and asbestos products. These operations included a crocidolite (blue asbestos) mine at Koegas and a mill at Prieska in the Northern Cape Province.
• Main results:
  • The House of Lords, in a unanimous judgment, refused to transfer the case to South Africa. The Law Lords found that the plaintiffs there would probably lack the professional representation and expert evidence needed, which would amount to a denial of justice.
  • The plaintiffs were first denied permission to proceed in 1997, then won on appeal. In December 1998 the House of Lords confirmed that the cases of the original five plaintiffs could proceed.
  • The plaintiffs' lawyers sought to add Hendrik Afrika, Cupido Adams and 1,537 others to the case. Cape again sought to stay proceedings, and a July 30, 1999 decision sent this group to the South African forum. That decision was later overturned by the House of Lords.
  • The South African government made a submission directly to the House of Lords in support of the victims.
  • The author stated that Cape had paid no compensation to any of its South African workers, although it had made substantial payments to U.K. workers.
  • The author reported that 82 asbestos dumps had been identified in the Northern Cape.
  • After the ruling, the law firm Leigh, Day announced that hundreds of asbestos cases against T&N, on behalf of victims from Swaziland, Zimbabwe and India, would move toward trial in the United Kingdom.
  • Cape announced that it believed it had good prospects of defending the claims in the English courts and would contest them vigorously.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the ruling has implications for other British multinationals, which may have to defend their overseas actions in U.K. courts.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Plaintiff.

Related studies

• Cape Plc: South African mineworkers' quest for justice — R. Meeran (2003)
• Justice for asbestos victims and the politics of compensation: the French experience — A. Thébaud-Mony (2003)
• Asbestos law: victims' rights and industry's reaction — K. Asch (1979)
• James Hardie asbestos victims compensation summary — Australian Council of Trade Unions (2008)
• The James Hardie story: asbestos victims' claims evaded by manufacturer — B. Hills (2005)
• Asbestos and asbestos-related disease: the South African case — J.E. Myers, J. Aron, et al. (1987)

Browse more research in International Journal of Health Services, or return to medical research.