Application for fresh inquest refused – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted April 6th, 2021 in asbestos, families, inquests, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Court of Appeal Considers ‘Lost Years’ Claims in Head v The Culver Heating Co Ltd – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 19th January 2021

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Latest Instalment in Insurers’ Challenge to CRU Provisions – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 18th January 2021

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Successful insurers’ A1P1 claim concerning benefits reimbursement in asbestos claims – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Court rejects JR over LASPO post-implementation review – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Cape v Dring: High Court clarifies the proper approach to applications by non-parties for access to documents referred to at trial under the inherent jurisdiction and open justice principle – Henderson Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020

Source: 3yf6pp3bqg8c3rycgf1gbn9w-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

High Court provides clarity on third-party access to court documents – OUT-LAW.com

‘The English High Court has refused to give access to court documents on the basis that doing so would not advance the principles of open justice.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Asbestos victims fail again in bid to access case papers – Litigation Futures

‘The group whose bid to access a bundle from litigation involving an asbestos manufacturer led to a Supreme Court ruling on open justice has failed in its application for the documents.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Mesothelioma compensation scheme considered at appellate level for the first time – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal has handed down judgment in DP v Topmark Claims Management Ltd [2020] UKUT 0106 (AAC), which is the first time the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (“DMPS”) has been considered at an appellate level. It gave guidance on the scope of the scheme, as well as wider points on the nature of an appeal before the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and on statutory interpretation.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd June 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Judge sounds warning about ‘lazy’ solicitors over years of inactivity – Law Society’s Gazette

‘A High Court judge has narrowly allowed a case to survive despite a wait of almost three years following the identification of a party. Solicitors for the claimant in Gregory v H J Haynes had applied for the limitation period to be extended after a fruitless search for the defendant’s insurer had taken them past the initial three-year limitation date.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 28th April 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

The relevance of pre-contract information – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 31st, 2020 in asbestos, building law, construction industry, contracts, news by sally

‘In PBS Energo v Bester Generacion [2020] EWHC 223 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court concluded that asbestos contamination, encountered on a biomass energy plant construction project, had been foreseeable in light of the pre-contract information provided to the subcontractor. The effect of this was that the subcontractor had not been entitled to an extension of time.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 30th March 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

‘The Death Clause’ – can basic charges be recovered under a Conditional Fee Agreement in the event of a client’s death? – 4 New Square

Posted October 29th, 2019 in asbestos, costs, fees, industrial injuries, law firms, news by sally

‘On Thursday 24 October 2019, Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini handed down his judgment in Higgins & Co Lawyers Ltd v Evans [2019] EWHC 2809 (QB), an appeal from a decision of Master McCloud sitting in the SCCO. Roger Mallalieu appeared for the successful Appellant. Simon Teasdale explains the facts, the court’s rulings and the implications of the decision.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 29th October 2019

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Law firm entitled to fees from CFA after claimant’s death – Litigation Futures

Posted October 29th, 2019 in asbestos, costs, fees, industrial injuries, law firms, news by tracey

‘A law firm which guaranteed clients there would be “no hidden, nasty surprises” could claim over £30,000 in fees from the estate of a deceased asbestosis claimant, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 29th October 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) [2019] UKSC 38 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In this case, the UKSC held that courts have an inherent jurisdiction independent of the CPR to order non-party access to court documents under the constitutional principle of open justice. This, however, is to be balanced against both any countervailing interests in refusing access, and the principle of practicality and proportionality.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 28th August 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Supreme Court rules that all courts and tribunals are subject to the open justice principle – 4 KBW

‘The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) [2019] that all courts and tribunals that exercise the judicial power of the state are subject to the ‘open justice’ principle.’

Full Story

4 KBW, 6th August 2019

Source: www.4kbw.net

Supreme Court backs public access to court documents – Litigation Futures

‘Non-parties to litigation should generally have access to all written submissions and documents which have been placed before the court and referred to during the hearing, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 29th July 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

New APIL chief: Falling PI damages “an affront to justice” – Litigation Futures

‘Trends in personal injury claims since LASPO, with damages falling, are an “affront to justice”, the new president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has claimed.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 21st May 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Leading firm held liable for asbestos case blunder – Legal Futures

‘The High Court has ordered Cardiff-based Hugh James to pay six-figure damages to the family of an asbestos victim for professional negligence in abandoning their personal injury claim.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 1st May 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Bridle-ing at a SAR? – Panopticon

Posted April 25th, 2019 in asbestos, data protection, expert witnesses, news by tracey

‘Sometimes the Easter Bunny comes bearing mysteriously non-egg shaped gifts to the data protection practitioner. The judgment of the always-worth-reading Warby J in Rudd v Bridle & J&S Bridle Ltd [2019] EWHC 893 (QB) is just such a delivery, albeit that this one appears to contain a high content of asbestos.’

Full Story

Panopticon, 18th April 2019

Source: panopticonblog.com

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

Full Story

Zenith PI, 10th January 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com