Martin McGowan, 63, took legal action against the housebuilder in the Court of Session after the firm obtained an interim interdict preventing him from speaking publicly about asbestos issues on its sites.

Mr McGowan had worked as a subcontractor for Springfield, employing up to 70 staff on projects. The court heard that relations soured in 2016 when he raised concerns about asbestos and the lack of PPE for his workers.

He claimed he was instructed to demolish buildings that, unknown to him, were full of asbestos, with the contaminated material later used as backfill on other developments. Mr McGowan said Springfield failed to act on his warnings and put workers, including his son, at risk of serious health problems. Concerned for residents’ safety, he notified householders at affected sites.

Springfield responded by seeking the interim interdict, arguing that his claims were damaging the company. McGowan said the order harmed his reputation, led to blacklisting in the construction industry, and caused him to lose contracts.

In 2021, Springfield was fined £10,000 for breaching health and safety laws over asbestos at a site in Milton of Campsie, East Dunbartonshire. The conviction led to the gagging order being lifted.

In a written judgment, Lady Haldane awarded McGowan £558,033 in damages to cover distress, anxiety, reputational damage, loss of earnings and employability.

She wrote: “His motivation throughout, he insisted, was trying to get the defender to take responsibility for what they did. His workers included his own son who he was concerned might have been taking home asbestos to his house where he had a new-born child.”

Lady Haldane detailed how the interdict devastated Mr McGowan’s personal life: “The inability to speak about why his relationship with Springfield had come to an end, or what were the issues underlying the interim interdict resulted in the breakdown of what had been a close family unit, with his older three children all refusing to speak to him or allow him to see his grandchildren. Only recently had relations begun to improve.”

She added: “The pursuer described the financial effect the interdict being in place had on him and his family. He and his wife had cashed in their respective pensions and he had been forced to rely on friends as well to help him fund the litigation process. He tended not to go out socially now. He was concerned about the reception he might face if he came across any of the men he used to work with and so preferred just to focus on work.”

Relatives also told the court of the toll it had taken. Lady Haldane noted: “Mrs McGowan was plainly, and appropriately, upset when speaking about the effect on the pursuer, and the evidence both she and her son gave about the previous strong family bonds and the effect on those, was similarly credible and persuasive.”

She concluded: “The interdict was wrongful, and persisted in for a period of five years despite the defender’s engagement with the prosecution authorities in relation to negotiating a plea of guilty to, inter alia, matters raised by the pursuer. The defender took no active steps to seek recall at any time despite the responsibility upon them to do so, as confirmed by the Inner House in this case. That was an egregious wrong that has had a significant effect upon the pursuer.”

During an earlier stage of the case, Lord Malcolm observed: “He has always maintained the truth of his allegations. Springfield’s conviction, if anything, suggests that he was right all along.”

McGowan’s allegations covered sites in Uddingston and Motherwell in Lanarkshire, West Linton in Peeblesshire, and Milton of Campsie. In an email presented to the court, he said he had been “left with no choice” but to alert homeowners about “the hazardous risks which lie in or on the grounds of their new homes,” describing how asbestos fibres were spread across a site when a contaminated building was demolished by excavator.

Lady Haldane said McGowan was “clearly aggrieved that his reputation and all he had worked for since leaving school had been damaged when he was ‘just telling the truth’.”

A Springfield Properties spokesperson said: “We strongly disagree with this judgment, and we fully intend to appeal it.

“This decision is not related to the previous asbestos case - raised in 2014 and fully investigated by the HSE and SEPA. It did not investigate nor confirm any of Mr McGowan’s claims, all of which had previously been interrogated and rejected by the relevant authorities.

“The interdict was sought solely to prevent the persistent spread of claims by Mr McGowan and this decision does not relate to, nor reopen, the historic investigation.”