Two recent cases dealing with exposure to asbestos illustrate the need for good quality representation when bringing a personal injury claim, particularly where the employer's breach of duty occurred some years ago.

The first claim was brought by the family of a man who died in 2011 from mesothelioma, a particularly virulent form of cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos, which attacks the lining of the lungs. When asbestos fibres enter the body, they can cause healthy cells to mutate into cancerous cells. These can lie dormant for many years before a victim shows any signs of illness. By the time mesothelioma is diagnosed, the survival rate is poor, with around 75 per cent of sufferers dying within one year of diagnosis.

Frank Parker had worked for Massey Ferguson as an electrician in the 1970s. He was sometimes required to carry out maintenance work to the wiring in the roof space of the factory premises, which contained pipes lagged with asbestos. The evidence obtained from Mr Parker's former colleagues proved crucial to the success of the family's compensation claim.

In the second case, Albert Carder, a retired electrician who worked at Exeter University between 1980 and 1994, has won damages of £1,552 after he was able to show that he was exposed to asbestos while working in boiler rooms on the university campus.

Mr Carder suffers from chronic respiratory problems and is reliant on supplemental oxygen to help him breathe. His symptoms began in 1998 and worsened over time, and he was subsequently diagnosed with asbestosis.

Most of Mr Carder's exposure to asbestos occurred during the 1950s when he was working as an apprentice for a company that was uninsured. The university argued that the exposure whilst in its employment was minimal and had made 'no discernible difference to his condition', but the court ruled that he had proved his case. Had the university been entirely responsible for his illness, the damages payable would have been in the region of £70,000: the compensation award was calculated as a proportion of that sum.

The ruling means that Mr Carder can return to court to seek further damages should his condition deteriorate.