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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll