Law court turns down asbestos death case

An application filed by the family of a dockyard worker who died of asbestos-related cancer has been turned down by a constitutional court on the ground that their pleas could be addressed by another court.

The family of Joseph Attard, who died of mesothelioma, claimed that the cancer was caused by exposure to the carcinogenic fibre during the 15 years he worked at the dockyard.

Mr Attard’s wife, Maria, together with daughter Claudia and son Anthony filed an application in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, claiming that government authorities violated their human rights by withholding vital information that exposure to asbestos was lethal.

Asbestos is a mineral fibre that was widely used in various industries as insulation and as a fire-retardant. The fibres are too small to be visible to the naked eye but if inhaled can accumulate in the lungs.

The substance can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the chest and abdominal linings, and irreversible lung scarring, asbestosis, that can be fatal. Symptoms of these diseases sometimes do not show up until many years after exposure.

The family said four of their fundamental rights had been breached: the right to life, not to be subjected to degrading treatment, to information and to a private and family life.

The application was filed against the Transport Ministry, the director general of Public Health, director general of the Health and Safety Authority, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

But all five government entities said none of them was responsible for Mr Attard’s death.

They also argued that the Attard family did not exhaust all the remedies available to them by law and instead opted for an “extraordinary procedure” by filing the case in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional capacity.

In doing so, the Attard family abused the constitutional process, they insisted.

However, the family argued that on statutory, jurisprudential and practical bases, “ordinary remedies” were not a viable option.

In handing down judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon pointed out that turning to the civil court in its constitutional capacity was “an extraordinary measure” and should only be used when the ordinary law was not enough to safeguard individuals’ fundamental rights

He pointed out that the Attards’ case, including their request for compensation, could have been decided in the civil court without entering into the constitutional aspect.

As a result, he accepted the preliminary pleas put forward by the government entities and refused to continue hearing the case.

However, defence lawyer Juliette Galea said that the family would file an appeal against the decision in the near future.