Isobel Lovett

Isobel’s recent successes include a test case relating to the test for causation in asbestosis cases. Isobel had obtained a provisional damages settlement for asbestosis for her client. He died many years later, and although the post-mortem histopathology report did not support the diagnosis of asbestosis, Isobel challenged this through supportive expert evidence, in conjunction with Mike Rawlinson KC, arguing that the “but for” test should apply in these cases and claiming further damages for his widow and estate. The Defendant denied the arguments but nonetheless, settled the case a matter weeks before trial. The initial claim had settled at £86,000 and Isobel secured a further £200,000 for the bereaved widow.

Isobel has also recently settled a living mesothelioma claim for a client who worked as an industrial chemist who had worked for three former employers, who had exposed him to varying, relatively low levels of asbestos dust in the course of his employment. The Claim was initially denied so proceedings were issued in the High Court. However, shortly before the first CMC hearing, an offer was received, which the Claimant, on Isobel’s advice, countered, resulting in a settlement of the claim and which importantly included provision for funding private medical treatment, if her client needs it in the future.

Isobel has also successfully handled asbestos product liability claims and since 2017, has advised and assisted clients in bringing claims in the US for mesothelioma caused by asbestos contaminated talc in powder and make-up.

Isobel does not shy away from difficult cases. She achieved success early in her career in asbestos litigation in the case of Cox v Industrial Power (India) Ltd CA 2007, the first in a series of defining so-called “low exposure” cases in which Defendants have sought to test causation in mesothelioma cases by reference to exposure levels. The Claimant had worked seasonally in power stations and for the Defendant for a matter of weeks. Despite the Defendant arguing that any exposure he had would have been de minimis and therefore, not actionable, the Court held that the exposure was not minimal and found for the Claimant’s widow, the Claimant, having sadly succumbed to his illness by the time of the trial. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on appeal by the Defendant. The case is still referred to in other similar cases today.