Elderly victims of mesothelioma could be entitled to substantial compensation, following a landmark ruling on damages for pain and suffering.

In the High Court last week Mrs Justice Swift awarded 92-year-old Dennis Ball £50,000 compensation for pain and suffering after he developed asbestos-related cancer following his work for the National Coal Board and British Coal Corporation.

The award is higher than the £35,000 figure recommended in the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) guidelines where the duration of the pain and suffering is relatively short.

In her written judgment, Swift said: ‘A person of any age who is informed that his or her life will be cut short by the effect of a harmful substance to which he or she has been wrongfully exposed is likely to suffer a good deal of distress.

‘Even if a deceased’s death has in the event been relatively peaceful, he or she will have been fearful since being told of the diagnosis of mesothelioma that a painful and distressing end lies in store.’

Swift said: ‘I consider that the appropriate award of damages lies below the lower level of the bracket of awards identified in previous editions of the JSB guidelines, but significantly above the lower level which appears in the latest edition.’

The ruling makes it clear that regardless of the amount of time the victim lives following their diagnosis, they should be appropriately compensated for the pain and suffering they endure, and paves the way for other elderly sufferers to receive settlements which reflect the pain and distress the disease causes, regardless of their age.

Lesley Mynett, industrial disease partner at Fentons, who represented Ball said: ‘The bar for pain and suffering damages has clearly been set too low for mesothelioma cases.’

As mesothelioma cases usually settle before court hearings, there was little in the way of legal precedent to assist older victims when assessing the level of compensation attributed to pain and suffering, she said.

‘The JSB guidelines used by judges to assist in determining compensation in these cases have changed significantly over recent years. The lower bracket of recommended damages has been reduced in order to allow a smaller award in cases where the time the victim actually lives and suffers with their symptoms is less than the average - which is usually between 12 and 18 months.’

Mynett said the defendant in the case, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, had argued that because Mr Ball was 92 and had only a short life expectancy, the amount of compensation he received should be reduced accordingly.

‘They argued that because of his age and the fact that he had only a few months to live, he in some way did not warrant the same level of damages as a younger person or someone who could expect to live longer,’ she said.