Having practised in occupational disease matters from almost the outset of his legal career, Jim Hester has a comprehensive understanding of this specialist area of law.

With many years of experience under his belt, he has an established and nationally recognised reputation amongst many of the market leading disease law solicitors, law firms, and insurers for his skill and expertise.

Jim’s expertise extends across all areas of occupational disease cases, including claims involving all forms of asbestos-related injury, vibration related injury, noise-induced hearing loss, occupational asthma and others.

His in-depth knowledge and understanding enables him to deal swiftly and accurately when advising on paper. In court, his polished advocacy skills, particularly when cross-examining experts on a variety of the hotly contested areas, makes him a formidable trial advocate.

He is instructed by both claimants and defendants to:

• Draft pleadings
• Draft Part 18 requests;
• Draft Part 35 questions often on highly technical issues within cases;
• Advise on the merits of a case, including: limitation; matters involving complex medical evidence; and where claimants have worked across many sectors or companies.
• Advise in conference;
• Represent parties at interlocutory hearings;
• Represent parties at Joint Settlement Meetings (JSMs);
• Represent parties at Trial, particularly where there are widely opposing issues in the case that require technical cross-examination, including of experts, and robust advocacy.

Jim is one of a select group of barristers recommended in the Chambers & Partners guide to the Bar for his expertise in Industrial Disease law nationally across all circuits.

He is instructed by clients nationally, and routinely appears in courts across the country. He is regularly asked by a variety of law firms to conduct specialist training for lawyers practising in this field.

He routinely writes for legal publications on the topic and is at the forefront of legal commentary on recent decisions and developments.

Jim Hester is Parklane Plowden’s Industrial Disease Group co-ordinator and welcomes solicitors contacting him relation representation, training, or any other enquiries.

Jim Hester’s notable disease cases include:

Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB)

Authority noise-related injury judgment involving a case where the claimant alleged 'acoustic shock' from noise exposure from military vehicle and headset use. The claim was valued by the Claimant at over £530,000. Though experts in 3 disciplines were cross-examined over the course of the 5-day trial, the case turned primarily on the ENT evidence. Following careful analysis of potential mechanisms of causation, the Court found that the Grindleford Criteria for diagnosing acoustic shock were not satisfied. The Court concluded that the Claimant's tinnitus and asserted psychological injury were not attributable to the conceded breach of duty. Jim was instructed by the Defendant.

RM v MoJ [2024] – acting for defendant in living mesothelioma claim, out of RCJ.

HF v Various [2024] – acting for wife of husband who died from asbestos-related lung cancer (a return condition following an earlier provisional damages order), out of RCJ.

KF v LTH [2024] – acting for defendant in occupational asthma claim, consisting of 4-day trial involving cross-examination of medical experts. Claimed in excess of £250,000.

HF v Various [2024] – acting for wife of husband who died from asbestos-related lung cancer (a return condition following an earlier provisional damages order), out of RCJ.

W v Various [2023] – acting for first defendant in line in 3-day trial involving injury (carpal tunnel syndrome and hand arm vibration syndrome) said to have occurred from exposure to vibration during employment. Claimed at over £600,000. Experts from 2 discliplines giving oral evidence. Claim dismissed.

Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190

A significant Court of Appeal case which considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and reaffirmed limitation principles in NIHL litigation. The claimant brought an action alleging hearing loss as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work between 1974 and 1981.  The judge found that the action was brought outside the limitation period and refused an application under Section 33.