VICTIMS of asbestosis will be given a boost by a ruling that a sufferer could be entitled to damages from a defendant even if its contribution to their disease is very small.

The Court of Appeal said that 87-year-old retired electrician Albert Carder was entitled to compensation from the University of Exeter, where he worked in the 1980s.

Although most of Mr Carder's exposure occurred earlier in his career - during the 1950s when he was an apprentice - his lawyers calculated that his employment at the university contributed 2.3% towards his condition.

On Friday, three judges upheld the High Court's ruling in Mr Carder's favour and dismissed a claim by the university's insurers that its contribution - material though very small - had made no difference.

Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson said that the 2.3% caused Mr Carder to suffer no symptoms and the extent of the disease was not measurable.

"But the severity of the disease had been increased to a small, albeit not measurable, extent. It is conceded that the increase was material, that is, not de minimis. In my view this concession is critical.

"In these circumstances, the judge was right to hold that Mr Carder was slightly worse off as a result of the 2.3% exposure for which the appellant was responsible."

John Hedley, of law firm Moore Blatch, said: "This decision is very important and will influence other asbestos cases.

"Whilst there is a long established principle around minimal contributions to asbestos exposure by employers, this case helps define what minimal actually means.

"We can confidently say this contribution can be as low as 2.3% or even less. Whilst the compensation is not substantial, it will help Mr Carder and the ruling will help many other people who are in a similar position."

Mr Carder, from Exeter, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1998 and suffers from chronic respiratory problems.

He said: "It's a huge relief for this case to have finally settled and to also know that I can return to court, should my condition deteriorate, which is of great comfort to me and my family. When I started my career asbestos was thought to be such a wonderful thing; unfortunately we were not made aware of the dangers."

Mr Carder was unable to pursue his other employers as they were uninsured and cannot make a claim under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme, which was introduced to help people where an insurer or employer could not be traced, because it does not cover asbestosis.

The full value of his claim from his total exposure to asbestos has been assessed at £67,500 so he is entitled to an award of £1,713 on the basis of the university's contribution.