‘Sufferers of a deadly industrial disease are central to new plans to improve the way they claim compensation, Courts Minister Shailesh Vara announced today.’
Ministry of Justice, 4th December 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“A government scheme designed to speed payments to mesothelioma sufferers could leave them thousands of pounds out of pocket and will not help other asbestos victims, according to claimant personal injury lawyers.”
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“A new law intended to ensure insurance firms pay compensation when employers’ paperwork is lost will apply only to some cancer sufferers, and they will get less than expected.”
The Independent, 5th May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“On 25 October 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Miners’ Knee Group Litigation. This is the latest determination of the appellate courts on issues of limitation arising in group actions and follows the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Atomic Veterans Litigation earlier this year.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 1st November 2012
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“A scheme to compensate victims of asbestos cancer will not come into force for two years, so many will die before receiving any money, the government is being warned.”
The Guardian, 19th August 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“UK Coal has been fined £200,000 after it pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches over the death of a miner at a North Yorkshire pit.”
BBC News, 18th July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“This may sound like a rather dreary topic, but the problem is vitally important for the proper reach of environmental and personal injury law. Some may have seen from my post on the Erika disaster the difficult issues which can arise when a multi–national (in that case, Total) does business through a number of corporate entities, particularly where they are domiciled in different countries. But the present case is a good example where liabilities are not confined to the party directly responsible for the injury or disaster. Good thing, too, for this claimant, who stood to gain nothing from his former employer, a company now dissolved, or indeed its insurers.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th May 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Sufferers of asbestos-related cancer will initially be exempt from government changes to ‘no-win, no-fee’ rules, a justice minister has said.”
BBC News, 24th April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the Employers’ Liability Policy Trigger Litigation on 28 March 2012. The appeals of the run-off insurers on the construction of ‘disease contracted’ were dismissed and the appeals of the insureds and Zurich against the construction of ‘sustaining injury’ were allowed. The result is that employers’ liability policies which are written on a ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ basis will, in mesothelioma cases, respond by reference to the date of exposure rather than the date of the tumour. The Court was divided on a subsidiary question of causation as to the application of the ‘special rule’ in Fairchild. Lord Phillips would have held that none of the policies responded but the majority was firmly against his view.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 28th March 2012
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“Insurers may have to pay out as much as £5bn to relatives of those who have died from asbestos-related cancers following a supreme court judgment that will benefit thousands of families.”
The Guardian, 28th March 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Peers in the House of Lords have voted for sufferers of asbestos-related disease to be exempt from reforms to no win, no fee litigation.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th March 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Elderly victims of mesothelioma could be entitled to substantial compensation, following a landmark ruling on damages for pain and suffering.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th February 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Compensation payments for workplace accidents could be cut under a government drive to reduce the cost of red tape to businesses.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd October 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“All pending court actions brought by former coalminers who allege their solicitors did not claim adequate government compensation on their behalf have been suspended pending a special hearing in April, the Gazette has learned.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th January 2011
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Threlfall v Hull City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1147; [2010] WLR (D) 262
“In cases where an employee had been provided with equipment to use in his employment, but injury had occurred and the question arose whether such ‘personal protective equipment’ had been ‘suitable’ for regulatory purposes and issues of negligence, regard was to be given to both regs 4 and 6 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992; and the concept of ‘effectiveness’ was at the heart of the issue of suitability.”
WLR Daily, 21st Octbober 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“In any year in which an employee underwent substantial exposure to asbestos and subsequently developed mesothelioma, the mesothelioma was ’caused’ by the exposure during that year. An insurance policy which was worded to indemnify the employer against disease ’caused’ during employment thus responded to the mesothelioma. However, employers’ liability policies framed in terms of the employee suffering or sustaining an injury did not have the same effect. Employees did not suffer or sustain an injury within the meaning of the policies when they were exposed to asbestos. Injury was not suffered until the onset of malignancy, and policies with that type of wording did not indemnify the employer. Mesothelioma might also be ‘contracted’ when exposure occurred.”
WLR Daily, 19th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Victims of asbestos and their families face more ‘confusion and uncertainty’ today after a Court of Appeal ruling.”
The Independent, 8th October 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Thousands of families bereaved by the asbestos cancer mesothelioma will discover this week whether insurance companies will compensate them for the deaths of their loved ones. The Court of Appeal will rule in a test case on Friday if insurers must pay out on company policies that existed when people were exposed to the deadly dust.”
The Independent, 3rd October 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Hospices that care for victims of a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure hope to get help with treatment costs following a landmark court ruling.”
The Guardian, 29th August 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A group of former miners who suffered industrial injuries are claiming they received inadequate compensation from a government scheme.”
BBC News, 18th August 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025