News Category 2
Mesothelioma and the New Era of Low Dose Asbestos - Alan Care, Thomson Snell & Passmore
07/11/14. This is the era of low dose mesothelioma claims. Some higher dose worker claims will continue to arise but the number of claimants will continue to fall over the next couple of years and are reducing as I write this article. One simple fact is the aging exposed population of heavily exposed workers. The majority of exposures to asbestos at work tended to tail off by the 1980s. An example being in the power stations when fuller precautions were introduced in 1983. Mesothelioma has a latency period of between 10-40 years. The heavier exposures tended to be from the 1950s to the 1980s. A useful review is “Asbestos” from the House of Commons Library [Research report 99/81.1999] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/RP99-81/asbestos
The legacy we all face is that the world production of asbestos in August 1978 totalled 6,018,450 tonnes. [1979/80 "Asbestos. Vol. 1: final report of the advisory committee" HMSO]. In 1975 139,185 tonnes of asbestos were imported into the UK. This asbestos was used ubiquitously in just about every building construction in the UK being used as insulation and fire proofing to comply with regulations.
A substantial amount of this asbestos remains in-situ so members of the public will inevitably have been exposed [or will be exposed] to asbestos. Clearly some individuals will be more susceptible than others. Proof of susceptibility is provided by so called “shake down” claims for wives who launder work clothing where often the husband who was more heavily exposed does not develop mesothelioma...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/hroe
Loss of Earnings: the “Ogden Approach” in Practice: Two Cases Examined - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
03/11/14. Several years ago the notes to the Actuarial Tables set out a more “scientific” means of assessing damages for future loss of earnings. In essence this is done by using the difference between the multipliers in relation to disabled and non-disabled claimants. See the guidance at paragraph 45 of the explanatory notes. Here we look at two cases where the use of this approach has been considered. In Ward it was held not to be appropriate; in Billett it was greatly modified.
WARD -V- ALLIES & MORRISON ARCHITECTS [2012] EWCA Civ 1287
In order to carry out the conventional multiplier/multiplicand tables valuation exercise a judge has to deal with two aspects before a multiplicand figure can be calculated.
-
Make findings on the likely pattern of the claimant’s future earnings if she (or he) had not been injured;
-
Make findings on the likely pattern of the claimant’s future earnings given the fact that he/she has now been injured...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/peepo
Developments in Fundamental Dishonesty - Martyn Griffiths, Hardwick
01/11/14. Personal injury practitioners will be aware of the significance of a finding of fundamental dishonesty in the context of Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (“QoCs”) following the implementation of the Jackson reforms. In addition to this those words could soon take on a new significance in the context of a defendant’s liability to a claimant and consequent costs orders in personal injury claims.
QoCs and Fundamental Dishonesty
As will now be familiar QoCs provide that a Defendant shall not be able to enforce any costs order against a Claimant in excess of the damages recovered by the Claimant unless:
a. The Claim is struck out because...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Editorial: No Information - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
29/10/14. In claims arising from road traffic accidents, where the Insurer has concerns about the claim presented, it is becoming increasingly difficult to advise the Claimant about the merits of their claim pre-action. The reason is that Insurers commonly send a letter repudiating the claim but not setting out the nature of their concerns in any detail. At the moment the Claimant decides whether to issue or not, such a stance makes it impossible accurately to assess the merits of the claim. Without knowing, for example, whether it is alleged that the parties were known to each other and the nature of the alleged connection, even the most detailed conference with the client is futile because it is hardly possible to anticipate every possible connection between individuals.
The Pre-Action Protocol applicable to Personal Injury cases provides that if liability is denied, the Defendant should...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
RTA Protocol: Late Final Payments Are Not a Ticket to Greater Costs - Matthew Hoe, Jaggards & Taylor Rose Law
28/10/14. Can a claimant tear up the agreement and issue Part 7 proceedings for the damages if the defendant fails to pay damages and/or costs within 10 days of a settlement at Stage 2 of the RTA or EL/PL Protocol? That was the issue before the court in Coggon v Irvine (County Court at Birkenhead, 17 October 2014, unreported). The answer was ‘no’. The claimant was limited to RTA Protocol costs.
The Issue
Paragraphs 7.47 and 7.44 of the Protocols require the defendant to pay within 10 (business) days. It is a mandatory provision, but the Protocol contains no automatic consequence or sanction if the deadline is missed. Thus it is a question of what is reasonable in the circumstances.
The regional costs judge had identified the issue as arising in a number of assessments, and listed three cases together for consideration of the preliminary issue of whether it was reasonable for the claimant to exit the protocol and commence proceedings, and ultimately to recover costs on the standard basis calculated by reference to hourly rates and time spent.
This was thus an older case in which escape from the Protocol opened up the possibility of costs on an hourly rate. In more recent cases, where the issue arises also, the claimant seeks the fixed recoverable costs under CPR 45 Section IIIA, which invariably exceed the fixed Protocol costs under Section III. In those cases, the claimant does not so often go so far as to commence Part 7 proceedings for the damages, and merely seeks the pre-litigation stage of the fixed recoverable costs. Coggon is equally of interest in those cases because it considers the question of whether it is reasonable to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
More Articles...
- Jackson Takes Stock - Flora Wood, Ashfords Solicitors
- Does Fatal Accident Legislation Treat Gay Men and Gay Women Differently? - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
- Awarding Aggravated Damages in Sexual Abuse Claims - Helen Nugent, No 18 Chambers
- Vnuk: End of the Road? - Nicholas Bevan, Solicitor, Mediator, Consultant and Trainer
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
