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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll