header-logo header-logo

08 December 2023
Issue: 8052 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digest: 8 December 2023

Damages

Holmes v Poeton Holdings Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1377, [2023] All ER (D) 129 (Nov)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant’s appeal from a decision which had determined that the appellant was liable to the respondent for all the consequences of his having contracted Parkinson’s disease. The respondent was a valued employee of the appellant. Later, the respondent was diagnosed as suffering from Parkinson’s disease. He filed an action and claimed damages from the appellant because it acted in breach of its common law and statutory duty in the period from 1982 to 1997 by exposing him to unsafe levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the course of his employment. The appellant alleged, among other things, that: (i) the judge had adopted the wrong legal test for establishing causation of what was acknowledged on all sides to be an ‘indivisible disease’; (ii) the judge misunderstood the evidence before him in assessing whether exposures to TCE in excess of occupational exposure limits occurred; and (iii) the finding of individual causation

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