ISSN 1470-8108 Issue 97 Spring 2015

Contents:

1. Parliament’s Asbestos Strategy: Small Carrots, Big Sticks
2. Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Limited (2015 UKSC 33)
3. News Round-up

1. Parliament’s Asbestos Strategy: Small Carrots, Big Sticks

Government action on a variety of asbestos-related issues in the run-up to the general election 2015 continues to impact on the legal rights of the injured, the viability of medical research programs and the dialogue about disease prevention. It is no exaggeration to say that just as the ramifications of one initiative were being explored, news of another was being broadcast. One would not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool cynic to suspect that behind-the-scenes discussions amongst government and commercial vested interests had resulted in just enough carrots being thrown to the injured to camouflage the very big sticks being wielded.

On February 10, 2015, a statement from Lord Freud the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions informed the House of Commons that compensation payments under the Government’s Diffuse Mesothelioma Scheme,1 which had previously been set at 80% of average civil damages, were being increased to 100%.2 Eligibility criteria remained unchanged except for the date of diagnosis which was now February 10, 2015 or after.3 While a press release from the Department of Work and Pensions boasted that “Asbestos-related cancer suffers are to receive up to 54,000 extra thanks to new compensation rules brought in today,” the reality was somewhat different.4 Under the new regime only a claimant aged 40 or under would receive an extra 54,000; there had, up till then, been no applications from people in that age category. Welcoming the average 21,000 uplift, asbestos victims’ representatives called for the scheme to be extended to claimants with other asbestos-related diseases and those whose diagnoses were received prior to the July 25, 2012 and February 10, 2015 deadlines. 5

The day after the changes were announced, there was a ninety-minute Parliamentary adjournment debate which had been secured by Liverpool MP Steve Rotheram on the Diffuse Mesothelioma Scheme.6 A number of MPs, including Kate Green, Ian Lavery, Tracey Crouch, Jim Shannon, Gregory Campbell and Andy McDonald, discussed diverse topics including whether excess sums raised by a 3% levy on insurers could be used for funding research into asbestos-related diseases. Addressing this issue, the Minister for Disabled People Mark Harper floundered in his attempt to distinguish between a “cap” and a “levy,” but agreed to look again at the available funding for research. In his comments, MP Rotheram highlighted the 11.6 million the insurance industry had saved by the reduction of the levy on employers’ liability insurance premiums to fund the scheme from 3% to 2.2%:

“The issue is a cause of major concern, because the Government explicitly promised that the 3% target would be met in year 1. The importance of the additional 0.8% differential cannot be understated. If the Government chose to act, the additional 11.6 million difference could enable payments to be made to sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases, who are currently not covered by the scheme, or in respect of those diagnosed before the scheme was in place… The additional 11.6 million could provide much-needed investment in medical research…

Should an additional 11.6 million be available in the pot, even if claimants were paid out at 100% of their claim, as they now will be, there would still be about 5 million left, which could be devoted to research. Why is that not happening? Under section 13(2)(b) of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 the Government can use the amount recovered from scheme payments under the recovery of benefits legislation to help pay for the costs of the scheme. Now that the costs of the scheme can be covered completely by a 3% levy, there is no need for the subsidy. It is currently estimated that nearly 5 million will be recovered from payments. That money should be used to fund medical research, not to subsidise the insurers unnecessarily.”

Evidence substantiating the paucity of mesothelioma research funding provided by the UK government was contained in an answer given on February 17, 2015 to a question (QWA HL47890) posed by Lord Alton about the level of mesothelioma grants awarded by the Medical Research Council. According to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual Property, between 2010 and 2014, there were four applications which received a total of 1.727 million with the largest grant of 992,471 going to Professor P. Elliot of Imperial College. Between 2004 and 2014, there were ten unsuccessful applications.7

In March 2015, more than eight months after publication was due, the Department for Education (DfE) released the 31-page report entitled: The management of asbestos in schools: a review of Department for Education policy. That this document was published at all was almost certainly due to the clamor raised by members of the Asbestos in Schools group, the Joint Union Asbestos Committee, MPs and others who were concerned about the report being buried in the run-up to the general election. While welcoming the publication, Russell Hobby, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, was “concerned that the report fails to set out a long term strategy in relation to asbestos in schools, despite recognising that school staff and children have died as a result of exposure to asbestos in schools.”8 The disappointment of the Asbestos in Schools Group permeated its statement:

“Although the review and its report are positive steps in the right direction, there is a lack of vision and the Government have failed to introduce the fundamental long term strategies that are needed to eventually eradicate the problem of asbestos from our schools. The report acknowledges there is a problem of asbestos in schools, but it has been selective in its choice of evidence and has failed to acknowledge the extensive and authoritative evidence spanning some fifty years that proves there is a serious problem. At times the report is not impartial and conceals difficult issues rather than addressing them. As a result present policies have been tweaked but only a few concrete proposals made.” 9

On March 9, 2015, a new schedule of court fees was introduced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which cast in jeopardy the ability and inclination of asbestos victims to initiate personal injury proceedings. For claims worth more than 200,000, such as are many asbestos claims, there was a 660% rise in court fees from 1,315 to 10,000.10 According to one legal expert, the increased charges “will make England and Wales one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the world to bring civil claims.”11 The reaction of jurists, members of the legal profession, campaigning bodies and victims’ groups was predictable with the Law Society announcing its intention to seek a judicial review over the “government’s ‘flat tax’ on court fees.”12 The grounds for this legal challenge included the following:

  • “The proposals would be tantamount to ‘selling justice’ contrary to the principles of Magna Carta.
  • The government does not have the power to raise fees for the purposes it has stated in the consultation – to make ‘departmental savings’.
  • The government is proceeding without evidence to justify the increases, which are effectively a tax.
  • Consultees were not told how much money needed to be raised from enhanced fees or why – this is a breach of the Government's own consultation principles, which state that sufficient reasons must be given for any proposal to permit intelligent consideration and response.
  • When the government tabled its second round of proposals on higher fees for possession claims and general civil applications, it had already made up its mind about certain options, which is unfair.
  • The government failed to allow representations on enhanced fees in combination with amendments to the remissions scheme.”

A pre-action protocol letter sent to the MoJ at the end of February 2015 by the Law Society indicated that court action over this matter was being considered. The letter was co-signed by: the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, Forum of Insurance Lawyers, Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Motor Accident Solicitors Society, Chancery Bar Association, Action Against Medical Accidents and the Commercial Bar Association. Unfortunately, one month after the new fee schedule had been introduced, the Law Society announced that “following counsel’s advice a judicial review bid has been ruled out.”13 It is unknown whether other groups might be considering action over the exorbitant hikes in court costs. It would be surprising if this was not the case as it is quite clear what the impact will be on claimants. A month before the MoJ’s proposals came into effect, Welsh solicitor Jeffrey Parsons, who represents asbestos victims, told his MP Nia Griffith that:

“As a result of the MOJ’s proposals, the fee payable on commencing court proceedings will be 10,000.00. Most injured people cannot afford these fees, particularly if they are elderly and have been out of the work force for some time. Such fee increases can actually be prohibitive and this will deter people from lodging claims altogether, thereby denying them access to justice at the time of greatest need.

You will probably be aware that many people who worked at the former Carmarthen Bay Power Station in Burry Port have been affected by asbestos related illnesses and I have no doubt that the MOJ’s proposal to increase court fees will seriously affect them …”14

Having won the general election, the Conservative Government will, no doubt, continue its cosy relationship with Britain PLC, an association characterized by back room deals which prioritize the interests of Tory fat cats over those of dying victims. MPs, Lords and Ministers might do well to take cognizance of the fact that they may one day find themselves on the other side of this fight. As the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow told a meeting of the Hansard Society in February 2015, the walls of the Palace of Westminster are “packed with asbestos.”15 A Parliamentary report into “The condition of the Palace of Westminster in 2012” quoted the conclusion of asbestos consultants:

“As a result of our inspections of the risers and ducts we became aware of significant dangers and risks to the health and safety of persons not only gaining access and working in risers and ducts but generally to all persons within the Palace of Westminster.”

The 2012 report was categorical about the asbestos hazard:

“Asbestos is a major problem, not because it presents an immediate threat to health… but because it impeded investigation and makes remedial work both difficult and very expensive, with the constant threat of cleared areas being re-contaminated from un-cleared areas. There is also evidence that some of the initial attempts to remove asbestos actually exacerbated the problem by spreading it further. Asbestos is believed to be present in almost every riser, as well as in many plant rooms, corridors and under-floor voids…”16

On June 7, 2015, The Sunday Times ran an article headlined: Asbestos scare may force out MPs which raised the spectre of a mass evacuation from the Commons chamber due to asbestos contamination in the “air ventilation system” which although identified a fortnight previously (in mid-May 2015), had not been generally communicated to politicians or other at-risk personnel. In a move not contemplated since World War II, plans were under consideration to exile peers to accommodate MPs in the House of Lords.17 Scunthorpe MP Nic Dakin tried to clarify the situation by submitting written question 1031 about the operation of Parliament’s Asbestos Management Plan to the House of Commons Commission on June 3, 2015.18 The answer provided by Sir Paul Beresford on June 9 downplayed the risks and reassured Commons’ users “that there is no reason to stop using the Chamber, or the adjacent offices and spaces.” There were plans, Beresford wrote, “to eradicate the asbestos in the trunking by the end of 2015…” The carefully worded response given by Beresford might have reassured some but others, such as Rochdale’s MP Simon Danczuk, greeted his statement with scepticism:

“This eventual official reply is as clear as mud showing a worrying lack of transparency from the Parliamentary Estate regarding a known carcinogen. Unfortunately this may be yet another example of a wider scandal caused by the toxic legacy of asbestos use in older buildings throughout the UK. However, perhaps if MPs and the Lords feel they are on the frontline due to potential asbestos exposure then there can be action to ensure everyone is safe from this deadly fibre – in our older schools, hospitals and contaminated land sites such as the Spodden Valley in my own constituency. Time after time we hear vague reassurances and platitudes about asbestos safety only for the death toll to carry on rising decades later.”

Whatever the true level of risk posed by the latest incident, the reality is that the health of those people who have worked or visited the seat of the British government over recent decades has been endangered by “asbestos deposits… present within the Palace of Westminster.” Having absorbed the latest news, let us pause for a few moments to consider the effects that periodic asbestos exposures might have had on someone who has been in and out of the Palace of Westminster for 24 years – someone like David Cameron, perhaps? Whilst there is no way to know how many fibers he inhaled during that time, there is no such thing as safe exposure to asbestos. Given the debilitating and fatal nature of the types of cancers associated with asbestos exposure, Cameron and the Westminster cohort might now wish to reconsider the Tory Government’s low priority for research on mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases – lives on the line may be their own.

2. Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Limited (2015 UKSC 33)

by David Allan19

On the 20th May 2015 judgment was given by the Supreme Court in this case which has important implications for victims of asbestos disease. For victims there were two key issues namely:

  1. In cases not covered by Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 was the House of Lords’ decision in Barker v Corus (UK) Limited [2006] UKHL-20 on the apportionment of damages in a mesothelioma claim still good law?
  2. In a mesothelioma claim, where an employer was insolvent and insurance for only part of the relevant period of exposure could be identified, was the insurer liable for the whole of the loss or only for part of the loss, proportionate to the period of cover?

On the first issue, some jurisdictions in the British Isles, for example the Channel Islands, have not adopted legislation equivalent to Section 3 of the 2006 Act and if Barker remains good law and represents the common law of that jurisdiction, then in a mesothelioma case an employer responsible for part of a victim’s exposure will only be liable for a proportion of the damages equivalent to its contribution to the risk. Further, Section 3 only applies to mesothelioma claims and if Barker is good law then it may affect recoverability in asbestos-induced lung cancer cases (see Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd 2014 EWHC 4190)

The second issue raised the prospect that in many mesothelioma cases victims will only make a partial recovery where an insurer cannot be identified for the whole of the period of exposure. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited [2002] UKHL 22 the House of Lords modified the usual rule of causation and held that an employer who exposed an employee to asbestos dust in breach of duty was liable in damages if that exposure made a material contribution to the risk of mesothelioma which had in fact developed. In Barker, the House of Lords extended the application of Fairchild to include cases where the victim was responsible for part of the asbestos exposure but held that the wrongdoer was only responsible for a proportion of the damages equivalent to their contribution to the risk. The decision in Barker on proportionate recovery was reversed by Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 so that any tortfeasor responsible for a material increase in risk of mesothelioma was liable for the whole of the loss. In Durham v BAI (Run Off) Limited [2012] UKSC 4 (the Trigger Litigation) the Supreme Court held that employers’ liability insurance policies did respond to mesothelioma claims where liability was established on a Fairchild basis. The Trigger Litigation did not consider the issue of the insurer’s liability where the insurer was only on risk for part of the period of exposure.

The facts of the present case were that IEG, a solvent Guernsey company, exposed their employee Mr Carré to asbestos dust during employment lasting 27 years from 1961 to 1988. Mr Carré developed mesothelioma and made a claim against IEG. He received full compensation from IEG. For 6 of the 27 years of exposure there was an employers’ liability insurance policy, for which Zurich were responsible. IEG sought a full indemnity but Zurich contended that they were only liable for 6 out of 27 years of exposure and only offered 22.08% of the compensation as an indemnity. The basis for this contention was that the law as laid down in Barker applied to Guernsey. In respect of the 6 years when the insurer was on risk, the insurer argued that IEG were only responsible for 22.08% of the damage and loss and so the insurer was only liable for an equivalent amount.

The Supreme Court was unanimous that in the absence of Section 3, Barker represented the common law. Barker had not been over-ruled by the judgment in the Trigger Litigation or by Section 3. Nearly all mesothelioma victims will be unaffected by this decision because Section 3 will apply to their claims. What became of far greater concern for victims was the argument raised by certain of the Justices in the Supreme Court, in particular Lord Sumption, that an insurer’s liability was not affected by Section 3 and was determined by the contract of insurance. Under the contract of insurance the insurer only had liability for the period of cover which was reflected in the contribution to risk. This argument had serious implications for many mesothelioma victims irrespective of whether Section 3 applied. In the common situation of an insolvent employer where an insurer could only be identified for part of the period of exposure the insurer would only have to pay the proportion of the total damages which reflected the contribution to risk during the period when there was insurance cover. It would lead to a shortfall in recovery for many victims. This was not an argument advanced by either party to the litigation or any intervener.

By a bare majority (4 to 3) the Supreme Court rejected the argument raised by Lord Sumption. An insurer who is on cover for any part of the period of asbestos exposure contributing to the risk of mesothelioma will be liable for the whole of the loss. The majority in the Supreme Court held that where there is a solvent employer who has only identified insurance for part of the relevant period, then the insurer is entitled to recoup from the employer that part of the damages which reflects the contribution to risk during the uninsured period. This raises an issue under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930. Under this Act, where an employer becomes insolvent the right to indemnity from the insurer is transferred from the employer to the victim. The question arises whether under the 1930 Act (or the 2010 Act which is not yet in force) an insurer’s right to contribution from an employer would create a defence at common law to an indemnity under the policy. In other words, if a victim is going against an insurer under the 1930 Act, can the insurer seek to set off the contribution which he was entitled to from the employer? Although the point did not arise for determination, the majority in the Supreme Court considered that no such right of set-off will exist.

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Zurich case is long and complex. The important result for most mesothelioma victims is that an insurer on cover for at least part of the period of exposure is liable for the full loss. For a few victims not covered by Section 3 of the 2006 Act, Barker may result in only partial recovery.

3. News Round-up

Developments

Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill

On February 9, 2015, the Supreme Court judgment20 in the case of the Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill - Reference by the Counsel General for Wales (Applicant) and The Association of British Insurers (intervener) [2015] UKSC 3 was issued by Justices Lord Neuberger (President), Lady Hale (Deputy President), Lord Mance, Lord Hodge and Lord Thomas.21 The litigants were disputing the authority of the Welsh Assembly as a devolved legislature to enact a statute which would enable the Assembly to recoup NHS costs for the treatment of patients with asbestos-related diseases from defendants and/or their insurers. The Supreme Court found that the Bill was: “Outside the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly concerning the ‘organisation and funding of [the] national health service.’” Part of the case for the compensators and their insurers was that the new financial liabilities were retrospective and as such contravened provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights to the “peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.”

The Bill had been introduced in 2012 to the Welsh Assembly by Assembly Member Mick Antoniw. Reacting to the Supreme Court’s findings, he said:

“The majority decision of the Supreme Court is disappointing to say the least and undermines the devolution settlement for Wales. Interpreting the Bill as purely fiscal legislation is both incorrect and inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. Resurrecting the Bill will depend on new devolution legislation for Wales which also devolves related fiscal powers for devolved areas of responsibility. I will be campaigning for these powers to be included in the new Wales Bill announced in the Queen’s speech to enable me to resurrect the Bill.”

Industrial Injuries Advisory Council Decision

On February 17, 2015, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) and the Department for Work and Pensions published the report “Cancers of the Larynx or Ovary and work with asbestos.”22 A review on this subject had been undertaken in response to a request from the Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum which submitted information from Monograph 100c by the International Agency of Research on Cancer to support its assertion that as asbestos exposure could produce these non-lung cancers, IIAC should amend the list of prescribed diseases for which Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits are available to include them. Key findings in the nine-page report were:

  • “the evidence of a doubling of risk of laryngeal cancer associated with asbestos exposure remains inconsistent… the Council continues to believe that the evidence is not sufficiently robust, compelling and detailed to recommend prescription.23
  • “the Council has concluded that exposures to asbestos probably increase the risk of ovarian cancer and may do so by more than two-fold if very high… Furthermore, considering the case for prescription in British populations, only women in asbestos textiles would now stand to benefit from prescription… and the case in textile workers is only supported by one study… The Council does not therefore recommend prescription for cancer of the ovary in relation to asbestos exposure.”

IIAC’s decision comes as no surprise say its critics who point out that of the almost 13,600 new cases of occupational cancer each year, only 2,600 are compensated under the benefits regime based on IIAC recommendations.24 This grievous failure to acknowledge the vast majority of occupational diseases would be an excellent topic for discussion on July 2, 2015 at IIAC’s public meeting; attendance is open to members of the public and people with an interest in occupational disease.25

Appellate Court Upholds Foreign Claim against Ford USA

Raymond Finerty, an Irish mechanic who alleged that the malignant pleural mesothelioma he contracted was a result of occupational exposure from the 1960s to 1980s to Ford asbestos-containing motor products, made legal history on February 26, 2015, when a New York Appellate Court allowed his lawsuit against the parent company of his employer – Ford’s UK subsidiary Ford Motor Co. Ltd. – to proceed. The language of the judgment was unambiguous:

“Ford USA acted as the global guardian of the Ford brand, having a substantial role in the design, development, and use of the auto parts distributed by Ford UK, with the apparent goal of the complete standardization of all products worldwide that carried the signature Ford logo. Thus, issues of fact exist whether Ford USA may be held directly liable as a result of its role in facilitating the distribution of the asbestos-containing auto parts on the ground that it was ‘in the best position to exert pressure for the improved safety of products’ or to warn the end users of these auto parts of the hazards they presented.’”26

Ford has asked the Appellate Division (first department) for leave to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals; although such permission is rarely granted, this avenue remains open for the time being. Highlighting the significance of the Court’s ruling, Mr. Finerty’s lawyer Brendan Tully said:

“For the first time ever, Ford USA can be held liable for dangerous asbestos exposures it caused in Europe. Ray Finerty's mesothelioma was caused by bad corporate decisions that Ford made in the United States; the decision that asbestos be used in their products and the decision not to include a warning. Now he, and workers like him, can bring suits in the United States. This doesn't just apply to people who worked for Ford in the UK, but to anyone who used Ford's asbestos containing products in Europe.

While this ruling only specifically deals with Ford, the analysis applies to many other American companies that played a direct role in selling asbestos products in Europe. Many American companies directly sold asbestos products in Europe without safety warnings. These companies profited off of these sales for decades, and now, in certain circumstances, European workers can go directly to the source and bring a law suit in the US, where these companies are based and where the reckless corporate decisions were made.”27

Pleural Plaques Compensation in Northern Ireland

On May 20, 2015, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland confirmed the 10,000 High Court award for damages handed down on June 27, 2014 for asymptomatic pleural plaques to the estate of William McCauley in the case of Carol McCauley v Harland and Wolff PLC and Royal Mail Group Limited.28 This is the first case in Northern Ireland following the coming into force of the Damages (Asbestos Related Conditions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 which reversed the House of Lords ruling in Rothwell v Chemical Engineering [2007] UKHL 39 in which the Lords ruled that asymptomatic pleural plaques were a non-compensatable condition.

London Council Admits Guilt in Asbestos Case

Having pleaded guilty over failing to protect employees and the public from hazardous exposures to asbestos, the borough of Waltham Forest was fined 66,000 with 16,862 in court costs on May 29, 2015 at Southwark Crown Court by Judge Deborah Taylor who was highly critical of the Council’s long-standing failure to address the known risk posed by asbestos contamination in the basement of the town hall.29 By its inaction, the authority had committed two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and a breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. Calling on the Council to launch a full enquiry, trade unionist Dave Knight said: “This is a matter of criminal negligence on the part of the Council as an employer and there should be some real accountability when serious, life threatening breaches of health and safety legislation occur.” UNISON Health and Safety officer Bill Palmer is urging the Council to be proactive and contact all those who were exposed to the three types of asbestos found in the basement and inform them of the potential consequences of their exposure.

Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2015

The Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill 2015 was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Alton of Liverpool on June 2, 2015.30 The bill calls for a mandatory research levy to be set on UK insurers to provide funding for research into mesothelioma.

Literature

The paper entitled “Demographics, management and survival of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in the National Lung Cancer Audit in England and Wales” was published online at the end of March 2015.31 An analysis of detailed data from a UK cohort of 8,740 patients with MPM confirmed: a predicted rise in incidence, the increased use of chemotherapy and low uptake of radical surgery. Median survival varied from 209 to 349 days amongst cancer networks with a small improvement from 9.2 months in 2008 to 10.5 months in 2012. Unfortunately, the authors found that “overall survival remains poor with considerable regional variation;” they concluded that there was: “an urgent need to identify new treatment modalities for MPM.”

In June, 2015, an online critique entitled “The HSE ‘Beware Asbestos’ Web App”32 was published by Paul Beaumont, an independent asbestos consultant and trainer. The HSE app which was uploaded last autumn was part of its 2014 “Beware asbestos campaign.” The app was both welcomed and criticized by asbestos professionals, groups and individuals, some of whom felt it encouraged unskilled workers to undertake hazardous activities.33

Future Events

This year, events to mark Action Mesothelioma Day (AMD) will be held by asbestos victims’ groups, charities and campaigning bodies throughout the UK on Friday July 3, 2015. The theme for AMD 2015 is “Hope for the Future.” For more information on AMD 2015 contact asbestos victims’ support groups in Greater Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Hampshire, Glasgow and elsewhere.34

___________

1 The UK-wide Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme was introduced in 2014 to provide compensation to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma and dependants of deceased sufferers who could not obtain compensation from former employers or their Employers' Liability insurer. Details on making an application to this scheme can be found at: http://www.mesoscheme.org.uk

2 House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS269). Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme. February 10, 2015. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-02-10/HCWS269

3 The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/367/regulation/1/made

4 DWP. Mesothelioma sufferers’ compensation boosted by extra 54,000. February 10, 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mesothelioma-sufferers-compensation-boosted-by-extra-54000

5 Asbestos Support Groups Forum Press Release. Asbestos Victims Groups Welcome Increased Help. February 10, 2015. Also see: June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund. New rules for asbestos compensation. February 11, 2015.
http://www.junehancockfund.org/2015/news/new-rules-for-asbestos-compensation/

6 Hansard. Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme debate. February 11, 2015.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150211/halltext/150211h0001.htm

7 Mesothelioma: Written question - HL4789. February 9, 2015.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2015-02-09/HL4789

8 NAHT comment on DfE report on asbestos. March 12, 2015.
http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/key-topics/health-and-safety/naht-comment-on-the-dfe-report-on-asbestos/

9 Asbestos in Schools. The Government’s Review of Asbestos Policy for Schools. March 12, 2015.
http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/npaper%20links/137.htm
See also: Hansard Adjournment Debate House of Commons. Asbestos in Schools. March 17, 2015.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150317/debtext/150317-0003.htm#15031763000003

10 DWF Insurance. Potential impact of intended dramatic increases in court issue fees. January 20, 2015.
http://insurance.dwf.co.uk/news-updates/2015/01/potential-impact-of-intended-dramatic-increases-in-court-issue-fees/

11 More on the adverse impact of Court Fee Increase: Blame the MO(i)J if the Economy Collapses. March 3, 2015.
https://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/more-on-the-adverse-impact-of-court-fee-increase-blame-the-moij-if-the-economy-collapses/

12 Law Society starts legal action over government's 'flat tax' on court fees. February 22, 2015.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/flat-tax-court-fees/

13 Caplen A. Keeping up the fight. April 8, 2015.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/keeping-up-the-fight/5048129.article
Also see: Update on civil court fees. April 9, 2015.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/update-on-civil-court-fees/

14 Letter from J. Parsons to MP Nia Griffith. February 6, 2015.

15 Parliament is falling down. So what can be done about it? March 3, 2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/03/parliament-falling-down-palace-westminster-restoration-cost

16 Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: pre-feasibility study and preliminary strategic business case. October 2012. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2013/restoration-and-renewal-study.pdf

17 Lyons J, Shipman T. Asbestos scare may force out MPs. June 7, 2015.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1565868.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_06_06

18 Parliament: Asbestos: Written question – 1032. June 3, 2015.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-03/1032/

19 David Allan Q.C. can be contacted at: Byrom Street Chambers, 12 Byrom Street, Manchester, M3 4PP

20 Judgment. Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill - Reference by the Counsel General for Wales. February 9, 2015.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0043-judgment.pdf

21 Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill - Reference by the Counsel General for Wales – Case Details. February 9, 2015.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0043.html

22 Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Cancers of the larynx or ovary and work with asbestos: IIAC information note. February 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cancers-of-the-larynx-or-ovary-and-work-with-asbestos-iiac-information-note
For more information on this see: Cancers of the Larynx and Work with Asbestos. February 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/404601/
Asbestos_and_cancer_of_larynx_or_ovary_-_IIAC_information_note.pdf

23 Cancer of the larynx caused by asbestos is already recognized for state compensation payouts in some other countries including Germany, France, Denmark and Italy. IIAC refuses to recognise two asbestos cancers. February 28, 2015.
http://cancerhazards.org/?m=201502

24 Watterson A, O’Neill R. Mean Test. Hazards Magazine. March 2015.
http://www.hazards.org/compensation/meantest

25 Invitation to an IIAC public meeting on 2 July, 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/invitation-to-an-iiac-public-meeting-on-2-july-2015

26 Finerty v ABEX Corporation. February 26, 2015.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1693161.html

27 Email from Brendan Tully. May 29, 2015.

28 Carol McCauley v Harland and Wolff PLC and Royal Mail Group Limited. May 20, 2015. [2015] NICA 28.
https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/[2015]%20NICA%2028/j_j_GIR9639Final.htm

29 HSE. London council in court after decade of ignoring asbestos risks. May 29, 2015.
http://press.hse.gov.uk/2015/london-council-in-court-after-decade-of-ignoring-asbestos-risks/

30 Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2015-2016. June 2, 2015.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/mesotheliomaamendment.html

31 Beckett P, Edwards J, Fennell D. et al. Demographics, management and survival of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma in the National Lung Cancer Audit in England and Wales. Lung Cancer. March 30, 2015.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25863904

32 Beaumont P. The HSE “Beware Asbestos” Web App. June 2015.
http://ibasecretariat.org/pb-hse-beware-asbestos-web-app.php

33 HSE. Free beware asbestos web app.
http://www.beware-asbestos.info/

34 For contact details for English and Scottish asbestos victims’ support groups see:
http://ibasecretariat.org/lka_gp_list.php

___________

Compiled by Laurie Kazan-Allen
©Jerome Consultants