A CANCER sufferer who claims that working with asbestos caused his condition has launched a legal battle for up to £100,000 compensation.
Hartlepool man John Elliott, 79, claims to have developed malignant mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos when he worked as an electrician for ICI between 1949 and 1958.
Mr Elliott is claiming damages from ICI Chemicals and Polymers, clai
ming the company negligently exposed him to asbestos, failed to provide respiratory equipment, failed to warn him of the risks he ran and failed to provide him with a safe place and system of work.
A writ issued to London's High Court says Mr Elliott worked close to laggers mixing and applying asbestos insulation.
It also claims he had to strip sections of asbestos insulation during the course of his work.
Mr Elliott is also taking action against Hartlepool solicitors firm Tilley Bailey and Irvine.
He claims it wrongly advised him he did not have a realistic prospect of recovering damages from the company when he approached it in 1997.
The writ says that in January 1999 ICI admitted it had employed him and that it had exposed him to asbestos fibres and dust.
But it indicated that there were issues over whether this caused his illness and also issues over the time taken in issuing a writ in the case.
At the time it is alleged that Mr Elliott was aware that he had a lung condition but did not realise that he had contracted the far more serious disease of malignant mesothelioma until December 2005.
Mr Elliott has declined to comment on the writ.
A spokeswoman for ICI said: "We do not comment on cases going through litigation."
John Hall, of Tilley Bailey and Irvine, said that the firm advised Mr Elliott on a sperate condition from mesothelioma for which he is claiming damages from ICI.
He said: "We were instructed to claim for damages for pleural thickening, a thickened lining of the lung which can be caused by exposure to asbestos and can cause a shortness of breath.
"We were never instructed to pursue a claim for damages for mesothelioma
"In relation to the claim for pleural thickening, we advised that the claim was statute barred and I stand by that.
"More than three years had elapsed since he became aware of the condition and because of that you can't do anything about it."
