The High Court was asked to determine the employment status of a deceased bricklayer to establish liability for asbestos exposure.
Facts:
The claimant is the widow and administratrix of the estate of Mr. Eric Alger, who died in November 2021 at the age of 55 from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure. The defendant is Clayton Bowmore Group Holdings Ltd., a construction company that was the main contractor for a project in 1988 involving the refurbishment of the Prince Regent Hotel and the conversion of an adjacent church, known as the “Woodford Bridge Project”. Because the company had been wound up years prior, it was restored to the register specifically for this litigation to access its historical Employer’s Liability Insurance.
Mr. Alger worked on this site for approximately seven months. Although he was a bricklayer by trade, his account of the work described a variety of labour-intensive tasks. He reported working alongside demolition gangs who were ripping insulation off pipes in a boiler room and stripping out old walls and ceilings. He claimed that he was never provided with a mask or warned about asbestos.
The claimant contends that Mr. Alger was exposed to asbestos when employed as a bricklayer on the Woodford Bridge Project in 1988. Her case is that Mr. Alger was self-employed in that he was responsible for his own income tax, but was directly engaged by the defendant to work on the Woodford Bridge Project.
Decision:
The High Court determined that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Alger was directly employed by Clayton Bowmore. This meant he fell under the definition of an “employee” for the purposes of the Employer’s Liability Insurance policy, allowing the claimant to proceed with the claim for damages related to his fatal asbestos exposure.
The Court found that Mr. Alger’s description of his work was compelling. Because he was moved between different areas of the site and performed general labour rather than just specialist bricklaying, the Judge concluded he was being managed directly by the main contractor.
Implications:
This case reinforces that tax status does not determine legal liability. Mr. Alger was “self-employed” in the eyes of HMRC (paying his own tax and National Insurance), yet the Court classified him as an employee in the eyes of the law. This ruling confirms that, if a worker provides “labour only,” uses the company’s tools, and is moved between tasks at the manager’s discretion, then they are classified as an employee. This allows employees access to compensation that would otherwise be blocked if they were viewed as truly independent businesses.
Moreover, this case demonstrates that a company’s legal responsibilities do not simply vanish as and when a company is wound up, even if decades have since passed. Through the process of “restoring” a company to the register, legal accountability can be revived decades later to access historical insurance funds.
The case has broad implications for any industry that relies on a “labour-only” model—where a company provides the equipment and infrastructure yet treats the workers as independent subcontractors. The ruling reinforces that “Employer’s Liability” insurance is often broader than the strict definition of a “payroll employee”.
