‘Just before the summer break Mrs Justice Hill handed down judgment in an application where four claimants (two living mesothelioma and two fatal mesothelioma claims) sought an order that their claims be consolidated and tried on liability together. This was sought, and granted pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(g).’
Asbestos Law Blog, 17th September 2024
Source: asbestoslawblog.uk
‘In this blog post, John-Paul Swoboda considers the recent case of Cuthbert, in which Michael Rawlinson KC, Max Archer and Jessica Franklin acted for the Appellant, the widow of Mr Derek Barry Cuthbert and executrix of his estate.’
Asbestos Law, 25th March 2024
Source: asbestoslawblog.uk
‘A group of 260 Royal Marines have issued proceedings against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) amid claims they were “knowingly” exposed to asbestos.’
BBC News, 12th February 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An award of damages in an asbestosis claim is reasonably substantial, often in the region of six figures. It is almost always made on a provisional basis, a consequence of which is that, unless the return clauses are activated, special damages are usually lower than general damages. Therefore, the award for general damages is likely to be the main component of the relatively large total award of damages in such claims.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 9th November 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘In this article Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas considers the judgment of HHJ Lickley KC in Ness v Carillion Capital Projects Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1219 (KB). Ness was a successful fatal mesothelioma claim.’
Asbestos Law, 5th September 2023
Source: asbestoslawblog.uk
‘Fresh concerns have been raised about the amount of asbestos remaining in dilapidated schools and hospitals, after new analysis found that almost 150 health and education workers were recorded as dying from cancer related to the material in recent years. According to official data, there have been 147 deaths among health and education workers since 2017. Experts believe the figure is likely to be a significant underestimate because of the way someone’s profession is recorded on death certificates.’
The Guardian, 16th April 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd [2023] EWHC 382 (KB) (judgment here) concerned a claim by the widow of Mr Brian Briggs, who died in 2017 after contracting mesothelioma. The Claimant brought a claim against one of her husband’s former employers, Drylined Homes Ltd (“DHL”). DHL had engaged Mr Briggs between approximately 1975 and 1979 to carry out “drylining”, namely putting up plasterboards during house construction.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 1st March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Richmond has been allowed to defend a £6m mesothelioma claim, after the High Court set aside a default judgment made in 2021.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st March 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The family of a teacher who died of cancer due to asbestos exposure at her school has won a settlement, prompting warnings that staff and pupils remain at risk in older buildings.’
The Guardian, 3rd March 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On Friday 22 July 2022, Johnson J handed down judgment in Power v Bernard Hastie & Company Ltd & others [2022] EWHC 1927 (QB) in respect of an application for an order for substitution made by the executor of the deceased’s estate. The judgment provides High Court authority for the proposition that a claimant’s right to seek further damages under a PDO passes, on their death, to their estate, a finding previously made by HHJ Roberts in his judgment in Guilfoyle v North Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust (County Court at Central London, 4 April 2018).’
Ropewalk Chambers, 1st August 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The BBC has paid £1.64m in damages over the deaths of 11 former staff who died from cancer after working in corporation buildings riddled with asbestos, the Observer can reveal.’
The Guardian, 30th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The BBC is being sued over the death of a set builder who contracted asbestos-related cancer while working on high-profile dramas including Doctor Who. Richard Evans’s widow, Valerie, is seeking damages from the corporation after it admitted in the high court that it had exposed him to asbestos during his 23 years making and painting sets.’
The Guardian, 19th September 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A number of judges are sceptical about the wider merits of costs budgeting, a costs judge has claimed in a new judgment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 29th June 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This was a Court of Appeal decision following a hearing in December 2020. The parties to the Claim were the estate of the late Appellant, Michael Head and his former employer the Culver Heating Company Limited as Respondent.’
3PB, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Applying for a fresh inquest is not straightforward. First, the bereaved have to get permission from the Attorney General. Only once that authority has been granted will they be allowed to apply to the High Court to reopen the inquest (section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988). Often cases are reopened because new evidence has come to light or there has been insufficiency of inquiry, for example where a person is found guilty of the murder of the deceased or new scientific data is provided.[1] Further, it has to be necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that an investigation be (re)opened.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a judgment handed down on 18 January 2021 in Head v The Culver Heating Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 34, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal against the decision of HHJ Melissa Clarke dismissing the Claimant’s “lost years” claim. The judge had dismissed the claim on the basis that the Claimant’s income derived from his successful family business, the profitability of which would continue after his death such that there was no loss. In the Court of Appeal, however, Bean LJ (with whom Males and Andrews LJJ agreed) held that the Claimant’s income was the product of his hard work and flair as opposed to a return on passive investment, such that it should be treated as earnings rather than investment income and was thus recoverable in the “lost years” claim.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 19th January 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In R (on the application of (1) Aviva Insurance Ltd (2) Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] EWHC 30 (Admin), Henshaw J dealt with certain consequential matters arising from his earlier judgment dated 20 November 2020 which arose from the Claimants’ challenge to the onerous consequences of the Compensation Recovery Unit scheme, particularly in cases involving long-tail asbestos-related diseases.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 18th January 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘R (o.t.a of Aviva & Swiss Re) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 3118 (Admin). At first sight, a rather abstruse dispute, but the 63 page judgment of Henshaw J gives rise to a host of important and difficult human rights points. But his central conclusion is that a statute which was not challengeable at the time of its enactment became so, because of the subsequent evolution of the law, principally common law, to the detriment of insurers.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has rejected a judicial review that argued the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to carry out an adequate review of the impact of the LASPO reforms on those with asbestos-related diseases.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Cape v Dring litigation concerns an attempt by a non-party to obtain copies of the trial bundle used during a six-week asbestos trial involving Cape which settled before judgment in early 2017. At first instance the Master granted the non-party permission to have copies of all documents, including the trial bundle of 5000 pages of disclosure, referred to at the trial. The Supreme Court confirmed in July 2019 that the non-party was entitled to written submissions, witness statements and expert reports under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, but remitted the question of what, if any, documents in the trial bundle the non-party should obtain to the original trial judge. On 16 July 2020 Picken J considered that question and held that Mr Dring was not entitled to receive any other documents.’
Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020
© Inner Temple Library 2024