12 May 2008

 

Disease - July 2007

This edition deals with deafness test cases; medical expert performance; the DCA consultation papers;...

...our regular asbestos update;...limitation and support for the objective test; legislation surrounding legionella in the workplace; success fees and what the future could hold for an increase in compensation claims.

Deafness test cases

Only one of the Claimants' applied to appeal the decision of His Honour Judge Inglis in the Deafness Test Litigation.  Permission was given; however funding has since been withdrawn. Leave to cross appeal has been granted to two Defendants. Read more about the deafness test cases and funding considerations. 

Medical experts - Applications for permission to rely on alternative medical evidence

Be aware of applications being made by Claimant’s Solicitors to obtain permission for alternative medical evidence where their medical expert has given a poor performance at trial in other cases. We discuss the issues surrounding medical experts and offer recommendations.

Asbestos update - Policy Trigger issues and other matters

The decision in Bolton MMI and CGU certainly opened up a can of worms and they are still squirming.  The indemnity clauses in Employer’s Liability Insurance Policies are now under the microscope following the issue of declaration proceedings by MMI.  Read more about policy trigger and other asbestos related updates.   

Recent Developments in Limitation - Disease Claims

There was more proof of the objective test for knowledge being applied by the Court in two successfully defended Weightmans cases.  We provide a first hand view of the strategy used to defend these claims and comment on the recent cases of Secretary of State of Trade and Industry v Mackie, Donnison and Jones v DTI and McCoubrey v MOD.

DCA consultation papers

Will  the proposed reforms for the claims process for personal injury claims and damages have an effect upon disease claims?  We discuss what could potentially lie ahead for disease claim handing.

Costs - 100% success fee for failure

The decision in Lamont v Burton means that a Claimant who rejects a Part 36 Offer and fails to beat this at trial can still recover a success fee of 100% for costs to the latest date on which the Part 36 payment could have been accepted. It is questioned, does Lamont encourage continued litigation?

Legionnaires disease

Weightmans Regulatory Services Unit recently presented at an IOSH training day with regard to the legislation and recent case law surrounding legionella in the workplace. Chrs Green discusses the impact of the case law.

Trends

What is on the horizon in terms of conditions which could result in compensation claims in the future and those where the number of claims is likely to increase? Read more about RSI, Asthma and possible links between occupations and diseases.

If you would like to discuss any of these topics in more detail, please contact Kieran.jones@weightmans.com or gloria.ginvert@weightmans.com

This update does not attempt to provide a full analysis of those matters with which it deals and is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice.

Weightmans LLP accepts no responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance on the information in this update.  The copyright for this update is owned by Weightmans LLP 2007.