There are several reasons why we thought it was important to take a closer look at silicosis in 2025, as a risk to clients both in the UK and globally. Here's why:
- The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been focusing on it and issued new guidance at the start of this year.
- There's been increasing press coverage in the UK.
- We've seen a noticeable increase in silicosis and dust exposure claims at DWF, including some that have made recent headlines in the UK.
- This, in turn, has prompted more discussions over the last few weeks with our colleagues here in the UK, Australia and in Spain.
Clients, particularly those operating in the construction, manufacturing and retail sectors, have also been asking us for advice.
Background
In the UK, it’s estimated that around 600,000 workers are exposed to silica dust. Historically, this exposure has been particularly prevalent in industries such as construction, mining, and manufacturing. Despite the significant risks, the current occupational exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) remains at 0.1 mg/m³,2 which some experts argue is insufficiently protective.
More recently, there have been several cases of individuals developing very serious disease levels resulting in death. The common theme seems to be working with artificial stone worktops for kitchens/bathrooms. These worktops are already banned in Australia because of a realisation of their dangers.3
So, what does this mean for the current and future state of play around the risks associated with working with silica? And what is the likely propensity for claims in the short term and the medium to long term?
Legal framework
An important starting point is understanding the law as it currently stands. Where relevant, we must often look beyond the UK, usually to the US and Australia, to understand how a particular class of claim might evolve in the future. Our ‘DWF dust team’ in Brisbane currently handles the largest share of silicosis claims for WorkCover Queensland, which is the state's workers compensation authority.
Silicosis litigation has been a significant issue in Queensland and around Australia since about 2018. Most of the claims come from the stonemason industry, particularly businesses that make kitchen and bathroom benchtops. Engineered stone products, which started becoming available in Australia around 2004, can contain up to 80% silica.
This led to a national ban on engineered stone (which has high silica content) on 1 July 2024. Given the high risk associated with engineered stone, from both a health and safety perspective and an insurance perspective, many Australian insurers now exclude silica exposure claims from their policies.
The legal landscape in the UK is quite different, especially since there's no current ban on engineered stone, and the workplace exposure levels (WEL) are currently twice that of Australia. That said, occupational hygienist expert, Martin Stear, when commenting in the past about WELs and silica, noted that in the UK it's about ‘reasonable practicability’, irrespective of the WEL – has the employer/exposer taken all reasonably practicable steps to reduce exposure to silica to the lowest level? Levels of silica exposure are always going to be difficult to measure and therefore control, as silica is ubiquitous in those industries where historic exposure has been prevalent and most of the workforce tends to be peripatetic.
Important distinction
There is an important distinction to be made between silica exposure from general construction and mining compared to exposure from engineered stone. Claims from the construction and mining industries usually involve decades of low-level exposure, and the claimants tend to be older and towards the end of their careers.
On the other hand, stonemasons working with engineered stone face much higher levels of silica exposure. Many develop symptoms within 5-10 years, and there's a higher rate of progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). These claimants are often younger, sometimes in their 20s, making the claims more expensive due to long-term economic loss and care claims.
Looking ahead
So, where does this take us in the UK in 2025 and going forward? Is the potential scale of the problem bigger than we'd hoped, or smaller than claimant solicitors might suggest? Looking at our data for ‘closed’ silicosis claims over the last 3 years, a significant number of those claims have been withdrawn or successfully defended. Heavy exposure to silica is not evidence per se of silicosis. Irrespective of the difficulties one will encounter with defending breach of duty for our clients, a forensic examination of the facts of each case is important and diagnosis and/or causation may well still provide a good defence to the claim; which, in turn, begs the question - is there a need for further education of the medical profession to help them better identify those respiratory conditions that can be reasonably attributed to silica exposure (as they have done with asbestos over the years)?
On a more positive note, it is pleasing to see that several new technologies are being developed to reduce silica dust exposure, such as sintered stone and silica-free engineered stone, enhanced dust control technologies, advanced personal protective equipment, and improved monitoring tools. There have also been a number of case studies highlighting successful implementation of these measures to reduce silica dust exposure, most notably in the construction and rail industries. So watch this space!
If you would like to discuss silicosis or any other disease issue with us, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
