header-logo header-logo

Double or nothing

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll