23 Mar - Asbestos critic was “pursuing a vendetta” against HSE

Tuesday, 23 Mar 2010

The High Court has struck out a claim for slander brought by a high-profile asbestos surveyor against the HSE.

The claim related to alleged remarks made by an HSE inspector against Professor John Bridle, of Asbestos Watchdog, during an inspection at the University of Wales Lampeter in 2008.

The inspector was alleged to have told two of the University’s employees, whom Mr Bridle was advising, that the surveyor was “not a real professor as he claims” and that they “should not believe a word that he says”.

Mr Bridle consequently lodged a claim for slander, contending that the comments had damaged him in his profession as an advisor on asbestos, and caused him to lose the surveying contract for work at the University.

The inspector denied he had ever voiced the comments complained of, but admitted he had explained to the University employees that there was a difference of opinion between Mr Bridle and the HSE on the risks associated with exposure to white asbestos.

The HSE and the individual inspector applied for summary judgement and to have the action struck out, on the grounds that the alleged slander was made in the course of the inspector’s duties and covered by qualified privilege, plus there was no evidence the comments were made in malice. They also argued that the claim was an abuse of process on account of improper collateral purpose and disproportionate time and expense.

In a judgement on 17 March, Judge Master Fontaine struck out Mr Bridle’s claim, citing not only that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the defence of qualified privilege but that Mr Bridle was pursuing a “vendetta” against the HSE.

Mr Bridle has had a long-running feud with the HSE about white asbestos, which he argues poses no measureable risk to human health. In September last year, a complaint he made against the HSE’s ‘Hidden Killer’ radio adverts was upheld by the Advertising Standards Agency, after he argued that the Executive had overstated the number of deaths in the UK caused by asbestos.

However, he has not instituted libel proceedings in respect of more serious allegations in the print media than were allegedly made by the HSE inspector.

In the ruling on the slander case, the judge said the “dominant motive in bringing proceedings is to cause embarrassment and prejudice to the HSE because of the claimant’s anger at the HSE’s refusal to accept his views on the subject in question. It is apparent from the evidence that Professor Bridle believes that a claim against the HSE will be likely to bring the debate about the difference in scientific views [about asbestos] to a public forum more readily than a claim against an individual journalist would do.”

The judge also said bringing the claim to trial would incur a disproportionate amount of time and costs. Mr Bridle has been ordered to pay the HSE’s costs.

Source: SHP Online Mar 2010