Court dismisses application by heirs of man who died through contact with asbestos

A constitutional application filed by the heirs of a man who allegedly died through contact with asbestos at the Malta Drydocks has been dismissed after a court found that the heirs had other remedies available to them at law.

Maria Attard and her children Claudine and Anthony Attard filed their application in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the policy manager of Shipyards Malta, the Chief Government Medical Officer, the executive head of the Health and Safety Authority, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

The Attard family told the court that they were the widow and children of Joseph Attard who used to work at the Drydocks between1959 and 1974. Mr Attard died of a cancer known as Mesothelioma which, his heirs claimed, was caused by exposure to asbestos at his place of work.

The family said that in the years of Mr Attard's employment, asbestos had been a staple material at the Drydocks and that it was used without effective controls. They added that it was common knowledge that exposure to asbestos was seriously damaging to health.

However, the Attard family claimed that despite this knowledge, the authorities had failed to provide Mr Attard with protective measures to counter-act exposure to asbestos.

The family requested the court to declare that their fundamental human rights to life and protection of family life, as well as their rights to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment had been violated.

They further requested the court to award them compensation.

The authorities submitted that the court ought not to hear and decide this case because the Attard family had other remedies available to them in terms of law.

In today’s judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon upheld the submissions filed by the authorities.

A constitutional application could be heard by the courts when it was clear that all ordinary remedies at law had been exhausted. It clearly resulted in this case that although the Attard family were requesting financial compensation, the family had never filed a case for damages before the ordinary courts.

The family had an effective remedy at their disposal if they filed for damages, but they had failed to do so.

The court therefore ruled in favour of the authorities and decided that it would not hear the case as the family had other remedies available to it.