header-logo header-logo

18 February 2010
Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Last resort fund plans

Government proposals to set up a tracking service and fund of last resort for employees injured at work have received a mixed reaction from personal injury lawyers and insurers.

Government proposals to set up a tracking service and fund of last resort for employees injured at work have received a mixed reaction from personal injury lawyers and insurers.

The Department of Work and Pensions last week set out plans to create an Employers’ Liability Tracing Office to help people track down the insurance policies of employers from yesteryear, and an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau (ELIB) to provide a fund of last resort for those who are unable to trace insurers.

The consultation, Accessing Compensation—Supporting People who Need to Trace Employers’ Liability Insurance, looks at how the tracing office could be managed and funded, and how much compensation could be paid. It also considers employers can do to ensure they meet their obligations to maintain employers’ liability compulsory insurance.

Ian McFall, head of asbestos policy at Thompsons Solicitors, which has campaigned for an ELIB, says: “This positive move is as welcome as it is overdue.”The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) called for all political parties to support the plans for an ELIB.

However, Nick Starling, the Association of British Insurers’ director of general insurance and health, says: “Over 98% of employers’ liability claimants are able to claim if they have suffered an injury or disease caused by their work, and insurers pay out £1.5bn a year in compensation.

“We are opposed in principle to the proposed ELIB. It cannot be right that today’s law-abiding employers should have to pay for their potentially uninsured competitors or firms that now no longer exist, and who may not have had insurance. Such a fund could also encourage some employers not to bother with insurance, or to take the health and safety of their employees less seriously.”
 

Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll