header-logo header-logo

22 March 2013 / Robert O'Leary
Issue: 7553 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Double or nothing

113477174_0

Robert O’Leary outlines what a claimant needs to prove in an occupational cancer claim in light of the Phurnacite Workers Group Litigation

The legal principles applicable to occupational cancer claims are the same as those in other personal injuries actions. The claimant must prove that the defendant owed him a duty in law, that the duty was breached, and that the breach has caused him injury, loss and damage. In such cases, however, other than those involving mesothelioma, the important question is often raised of how the burden of proof can be discharged where there are alternative potential causes of a disease.

Sienkiewicz

Before the decision of the Supreme Court in Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] UKSC 10, a mesothelioma claim, the test applied by the courts was whether the claimant had proved that the defendant’s breach of duty more than doubled the relative risk of the claimant contracting the disease (the “doubles the risk” test). The “doubles the risk” test had been applied

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll