Former BBC engineer sues corporation after repeated exposure to asbestos dust
A BBC engineer is suing the corporation after repeatedly coming into contact with deadly asbestos dust released at buildings where he worked, including the site of the IRA Brighton bombing.
Malcolm Hunter, 78, says he was exposed to the airborne dust when he worked on outside broadcasts sts for the BBC at the Grand Hotel in Brighton righton in 1984, where five people were ere killed when the IRA set off a devastating ating bomb a the Conservative Party conference. ference.
He also claims he came into nto regular contact with asbestos inside BBC buildings and other sites where here he worked.
Mr Hunter is now suing the he BBC for damages of more than an £300,000, accusing the corporation of negligence in failing to prepare him for the risk of asbestos in buildings to which he was assigned for outside broadcasts.
Mr Hunter claims in documents lodged with the High Court that he often worked in buildings containing asbestos, including the Houses of Parliament, where pipes were lagged with the material. ma He also worked regularly at the BBC’s Television Televis Centre, Lime Grove, and an Riverside Studios, all of o which contained asb asbestos, where he was often of required to crawl around in confined spaces, disturbing asbestoslagged pipework. pip Mr Hunter, Hu who worked on the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965 and the 1972 Munich Olympics, was subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma, which he claims was as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos during his BBC career between 1962 and 1998.
He accuses the BBC of failing to provide proper ventilation or protective equipment, or a safe working environment, and exposing him to a risk of fatal injury from asbestos without giving him adequate protection or warning him of the risks he ran.
The BBC is understood to be denying liability and contesting Mr Hunter’s damages claim.
A spokesman for the corporation said: “The health and safety of BBC staff is a primary concern. Given that there is an ongoing legal case we do not consider it appropriate to comment further.”