header-logo header-logo

12 November 2010 / Rehana Azib
Issue: 7441 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A mixed bag

Rehana Azib reports on liability, protection & limitation

The eagerly anticipated judgment of the Court of the Appeal in the Employers’ Liability (EL) Trigger Litigation was handed down last month, the results of which were rather a mixed bag.

Insurers appealed against the decision of Burton J at first instance. The judge adopted a causation approach to the construction of the insurance policies and that were in force at the date of inhalation of asbestos dust which subsequently caused mesothelioma many years later, were liable to indemnify on the basis that injury was actually sustained and disease was contracted when it was caused ie at that time and not subsequently. The appellants relied on Bolton MBC v Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited [2006] 1 WLR 1492, [2006] All ER (D) 66 (Feb) in which injury was sustained or the disease was contracted when the employee actually suffered it, which would be at the time the disease manifested itself in the form of a tumour. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that Bolton concerned a policy

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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