Archive for the 'asbestos' Category

Miner Ray Noble’s family wins Retford asbestos case – BBC News

“The family of a miner who died years after an experiment with asbestos coating in a pit have won compensation three years after his death.”

Full story

BBC News, 10th March 2011

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council – WLR daily

“The special rule attributing causation to multiple defendants in mesothelioma cases also applied to a single defendant who, in breach of duty, exposed a victim to asbestos dust, where her only other known exposure was low level asbestos fibres in the general atmosphere and where she subsequently contracted the disease.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2011
 
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

School asbestos compensation puts councils under pressure – The Guardian

“The government faces pressure to assess the risk of asbestos in schools following a landmark legal victory for the family of a woman who died after ‘low-level’ exposure as a secondary school pupil.”

Full story

The Guardian, 9th March 2011

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Families win asbestos payouts in Supreme Court hearing – BBC News

“Two families have won ground-breaking claims for compensation after loved ones died from cancer after exposure to ‘low level’ asbestos on Merseyside.”

Full story

BBC News, 9th March 2011

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

In re Employers’ Liability “Trigger” Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Freming & Eddlestone v Independent Insurance Co Ltd; Edwards v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Akzo; Nobel UK Ltd and another v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co and others – WLR Daily

In re Employers’ Liability “Trigger” Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Freming & Eddlestone v Independent Insurance Co Ltd; Edwards v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Akzo; Nobel UK Ltd and another v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1096; [2010] WLR (D) 256

“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.

Ruling fails to halt confusion for asbestos sufferers – The Independent

“Victims of asbestos and their families face more ‘confusion and uncertainty’ today after a Court of Appeal ruling.”

Full story

The Independent, 8th October 2010

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Mesothelioma: Hospice wins landmark victory in asbestos cancer case – The Guardian

“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.”

Full story

The Guardian, 29th August 2010

Source: www.guardian.co.uk


August 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Categories