Fatal accident damages considered: Blake -v- Mad Max Limited – Zenith PI

Full Story

Zenith PI, 10th January 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Security firm pays damages to anti-asbestos activists it spied on – The Guardian

‘A private security firm has been forced to pay damages to five anti-asbestos campaigners after they discovered it had spied on them. The firm, K2 Intelligence, paid an infiltrator for four years to masquerade as a sympathetic documentary-maker to obtain confidential information about leading activists in the worldwide campaign to ban asbestos.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 8th November 2018

Source: www.theguardian.com

County council fined £200k over disturbance of asbestos at primary school – Local Government Lawyer

Posted September 12th, 2018 in asbestos, fines, health & safety, local government, news by tracey

‘Kent County Council has been fined £200,000 after asbestos was disturbed at a primary school.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 11th September 2018

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Asbestos documents must be disclosed to pressure group, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted December 13th, 2017 in asbestos, disclosure, news, public interest by sally

‘A huge collection of documents, including “those relating to the history and development of knowledge in the 20th century about the risks of asbestos”, must be disclosed to the public, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th December 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

PPO first as insurer agrees to cover future cost of mesothelioma treatment – Litigation Futures

‘Solicitors for a man suffering from mesothelioma have claimed a first by securing an agreement with the defendant insurers to cover the future costs of his cancer treatment, no matter the amount or length.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 24th October 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Lawyers sue to discover extent of information obtained by “corporate spy” – Legal Futures

Posted February 20th, 2017 in asbestos, confidentiality, legal profession, news, spying by sally

‘A solicitor and barrister who act for an anti-asbestos campaign are in a legal battle over what confidential and privileged information was passed on by a supposed TV documentary maker who was actually placed in the campaign to spy on its activities.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 20th February 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Asbestos: Breach, Causation and Damages, David Kearns v Delta Steeplejacks Limited [2017] EWHC 149 (QB) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 15th, 2017 in apportionment, asbestos, causation, damages, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Where an apportionment for exposure to asbestos was carried out using a time based apportionment as opposed to a dose based apportionment.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Material Contribution – Carder v University Of Exeter (2016) – Zenith PI

Posted October 7th, 2016 in asbestos, damages, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 5th October 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

University forced to pay out for 2.3% contribution to employee’s asbestosis – Litigation Futures

Posted August 3rd, 2016 in asbestos, compensation, negligence, news, personal injuries, universities by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 1st August 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Damages in Fatal Accidents Claims: Supreme Court decision as to proper basis for calculations of future loss – Henderson Chambers

Posted March 22nd, 2016 in accidents, appeals, asbestos, damages, industrial injuries, news, Supreme Court, trials by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, February 2016

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Veterans dying from asbestos-related cancer win battle for compensation – The Independent

Posted March 1st, 2016 in armed forces, asbestos, cancer, compensation, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

The Independent, 29th February 2016

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Supreme Court rejects ‘illogical’ precedent on death payments – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted February 25th, 2016 in accidents, appeals, asbestos, damages, news, personal injuries, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has ruled that a mesothelioma victim’s family was under-compensated because of the date when damages were calculated.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 24th February 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc – WLR Daily

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

International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc (Association of British Insurers and another intervening) – WLR Daily

International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc (Association of British Insurers and another intervening) [2015] UKSC 33; [2015] WLR (D) 233

‘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

UK Supreme Court judges show little appetite for extending ‘Fairchild’ exception to other scenarios, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

‘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.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 26th May 2015

Source: www.out-law.co.com

Supreme Court backs “broad equitable approach” to insurers’ liability in mesothelioma cases – Litigation Futures

Posted May 21st, 2015 in appeals, asbestos, compensation, insurance, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘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

After settlement of a claim for asbestos-related disease against two employers, is it an abuse of process to bring a claim for mesothelioma against a third employer two and a half years later? – Zenith PI Blog

Posted March 31st, 2015 in abuse of process, asbestos, industrial injuries, limitations, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 30th March 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Personal injury Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street

Posted March 19th, 2015 in asbestos, costs, damages, news, personal injuries, vicarious liability by sally

Personal Injury Newsletter (PDF)

Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015

Source: www.39essex.com

The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom Constitution – Lecture by Lady Hale

The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom Constitution (PDF)

Lecture by Lady Hale

The Bryce Lecture, 5th February 2015

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Supreme Court says Welsh NHS charges Bill in breach of A1P1 – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 11th February 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com