header-logo header-logo

05 March 2010
Issue: 7407 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Damages
printer mail-detail

Asbestos illness payments rise

Extra financial help for sufferers of mesothelioma and plural plaques
Mesothelioma sufferers are to be given an extra 40% of financial help, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced.

From April, lump sum payments made under the 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme will increase to the same level as those paid under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. This means individuals who develop the disease from asbestos exposure outside the workplace will receive the same payment as those exposed at work. 

Sufferers currently receive a minimum payment of £8,197 from the Mesothelioma Scheme. This will rise to £11,678 in April. The maximum payment will rise from £52,772 to £75,176.

Families of sufferers will be given an increase of up to £5,000. The government will increase payment levels under the 1979 Act by a further 1.5%. About 6,000 claimants with pleural plaques who began claims before a House of Lords ruling on 17 October 2007 will be given one-off payments of £5,000. The Law Lords held that the existence of pleural plaques did not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. Previously, the courts had regarded plaques as compensatable.

Trade union law firm Thompsons Solicitors welcomed the DWP decision on mesothelioma but expressed disappointment at the decision not to restore compensation for people with pleural plaques.

Ian McFall, head of asbestos policy at Thompsons Solicitors said: “On behalf of our clients we are disappointed the government has decided not to overturn the House of Lords’ judgment although we recognise that at least some people with pleural plaques will get something.”

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers welcomed the increased payments for mesothelioma sufferers and their dependants, but said the decision on pleural plaques was “a disappointing end to a long, drawn out consultation process”. Mesothelioma is a fatal cancer of the lining of the lungs or abdomen associated with exposure to asbestos.

Issue: 7407 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Damages
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll