‘Where an apportionment for exposure to asbestos was carried out using a time based apportionment as opposed to a dose based apportionment.’
Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Albert Victor Carder v University Of Exeter [2016] EWCA Civ 790. The Court of Appeal held that an asbestosis sufferer was entitled to recover damages from an employer who had contributed 2.3% of his overall exposure to asbestos dust. The contribution, whilst undoubtedly very small, had materially contributed to the respondent’s medical condition and was not de minimis.’
Zenith PI, 5th October 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that an employer who negligently contributed 2.3% of the asbestos fibres in the lungs of an asbestosis sufferer should have to pay proportional compensation.’
Litigation Futures, 1st August 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Knauer (Widower and Administrator of the Estate of Sally Ann Knaur) v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, the Supreme Court has held that the correct date as at which to assess the multiplier when fixing damages for future loss in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be the date of trial and not the date of death. In doing so it refused to follow two decisions of the House of Lords (Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 and Graham v Dodds [1983] 1 WLR 808) pursuant to which the relevant date had been the date of death.’
Henderson Chambers, February 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Scores of veterans dying from asbestos-related cancer caused by their time in the military are to receive a lump sum in compensation, following an Independent campaign to overturn rules that left them worse off than civilians.’
The Independent, 29th February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has ruled that a mesothelioma victim’s family was under-compensated because of the date when damages were calculated.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th February 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc: [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] WLR (D) 261
‘An unsuccessful party in a construction contract adjudication was entitled to be repaid any money paid pursuant to the adjudication if the underlying dispute was finally determined in his favour, and the cause of action for the recovery of such money accrued on the date on which the money was paid. However, the cause of action of a party who wished to bring proceedings for more than the amount which he had been awarded under an adjudication accrued on the date of the relevant breach of contract or duty.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘At common law, an employer who had compensated an employee for exposing him to mesothelioma was only entitled to an indemnity under his liability insurance to the extent of the proportion which the policy period bore to the whole period of the employee’s exposure by the employer but could recover 100% per cent of the defence costs incurred in defending the employee’s claim.
WLR Daily, 20th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Comments made by some of the UK’s top judges during a recent ruling appear to signal their reluctance to extend the so-called ‘Fairchild’ exception to the normal rules of causation to cover any more types of damage or injury, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.co.com
‘Insurers liable to pay compensation to mesothelioma victims have rights to pro rata contributions from other insurers and/or employers covering some of the time of exposure, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 20th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘The High Court decision in Lloyd v Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd [2015] EWHC 525 (QB) handed down on 20.3.2015 considers if there was abuse of process in those circumstances. It is also a useful example of the Court’s willingness to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
Zenith PI Blog, 30th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom Constitution (PDF)
Lecture by Lady Hale
The Bryce Lecture, 5th February 2015
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘Sounds like a rather abstruse case, but the Supreme Court has had some important things to say about how the courts should approach an argument that Article 1 of Protocol 1 to ECHR (the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) is breached by a legislative decision. The clash is always between public benefit and private impairment, and this is a good example.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 9th February 2015
‘Firms in Wales whose staff are treated for asbestos-related illnesses are to learn if they must reimburse the NHS.’
BBC News, 9th February 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘New measures to support sufferers of the industrial disease mesothelioma and their families have been announced by Justice Minister Lord Faulks.’
Ministry of Justice, 8th December 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Defendants in asbestos-related claims should be careful to ensure that compensation paid under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 (“the Act”) is properly deducted from a claimant’s damages, before an order for damages is made against them.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Manchester County Court’s designated District Judges for Cancer Asbestos and Terminal Illness (“CAT”) cases apply from the outset the Mesothelioma Claims Practice Direction to all asbestos-related claims, irrespective of whether they involve mesothelioma: and this appeal judgment supports this practice.’
Zenith PI Blog, 5th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission plc [2014] UKSC 53; [2014] WLR (D) 439
‘The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, made under section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, were capable of applying where a person who, in the course of employment with a different employer, attended the defendant’s premises, and as a visitor viewed workers carrying on a process of mixing asbestos dust with water to form a paste for lagging work which exposed him to asbestos dust, even though the main business of the premises was not the processing of asbestos or the making of asbestos products.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025