header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 November 2010 / Rehana Azib
Issue: 7441 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A mixed bag

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll