Present Day
Thompsons - Fighting For Workers Compensation
Both the cases below improved the protection afforded to workers under new and old regulatory frameworks applicable to dangerous substances. Once again they demonstrate that Thompsons' aggressive approach to litigation can bring benefits to large groups of workers.
The COSHH Regulations
Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and another (2003):
This case involved a claim against a hospital under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations 1988 (the COSHH Regulations).
The claimant worked as a nurse. She had suffered eczema and asthma all her life. Between 1993 and 1995 she developed an allergy to latex as a result of using powdered latex gloves in the course of her work.
There was no published evidence before 1993 that the use of latex gloves could result in latex allergy. In 1996 the hospital provided her with vinyl gloves after she suffered a serious reaction whilst performing a procedure using latex gloves. In 1997 whilst employed at a different hospital and using vinyl gloves she suffered an anaphylactic attack when picking up an empty box which had contained latex gloves. She had to give up work.
The court held that the duty under the COSHH Regulations was absolute: to ensure that exposure was prevented or adequately controlled. The defence of reasonable practicability qualified only the duty of total prevention. The employer could have provided vinyl gloves. The purpose of the regulations was protective and preventative and the claimant therefore succeeded in her claim against the first hospital.
The Asbestos Industry Regulations
Dawson v The Cherry Tree Machine Company Ltd and Another (2001):
In this case, handled by Thompsons and heard by the Court of Appeal in 2001, an important point of interpretation arose in respect of the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931.
Mr Dawson was employed by the company as an apprentice fitter from 1945 to 1949. The company manufactured dry cleaners' presses. From 1946 to 1948 part of his job was to seal the presses with asbestos to stop steam escaping. He would take a couple of handfuls of asbestos flock, put it in a bucket and mix it with water and then apply it. He alleged that the employers were in breach of the 1931 regulations.
The employers argued that the 1931 regulations only applied to the asbestos industry and not the incidental use of asbestos in other industries. The judge agreed with Thompsons' interpretation and this was upheld in the Court of Appeal, a decision of considerable importance to anyone suffering from an asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure before World War 2.
Personal Injury - Asbestos - The Fight Goes On
Some recent cases involving asbestos-related disease show that there is still ongoing dispute about liability from some employers and their insurers:
Fairchild and Others v Glenhaven Funeral Services and Others (2002):
Five similar cases where defendants tried to avoid paying compensation for mesotheliioma, a fatal type of cancer caused by asbestos exposure, on the basis that the victims could not prove which company had caused the disease. The Law Lords decided that any company which was at fault by exposing workers to asbestos would be responsible in law for compensating the victims in full.
Barker and Others v St Gobain Pipelines Ltd and Others (2004):
Following on from the Fairchild appeal the defendants in the Barker case argued that they should not be liable to pay full compensation to mesothelioma victims but instead that compensation should be limited to the extent the employer had contributed to the risk of causing mesothelioma.
The effect of this was to reduce compensation payments for mesothelioma victims who were unable to bring a claim against every employer that had exposed them to asbestos. This was very often the case because employers had gone out of business and no insurers could be found.
The House of Lords accepted the defendants' arguments. Their decision deprived many mesothelioma victims of their entitlement to full compensation.
Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006:
In response to the unjust outcome of the Barker decision a compaign led by Trade Unions and asbestos victim support groups and backed by many Labour MP's and Thompsons, among other, brought about the introduction of legislation to reverse the House of Lords decision in Barker and restored the right to full compensation for mesothelioma.
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co. Ltd and Others (2007):
The cases of 10 workers suffering pleural plaques, were brought before the High Court in 2005 when the employers' insurers argued that no compensation should be paid because pleural plaques are not a significant injury. The insurers were unsuccessful in that the High Court decided that pleural plaques sufferers should continue to receive compensation but that the amounts of compensation should be reduced. The insurers appealed the decision.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal in 2006 and the House of Lords in 2007 overturned the High Court's decision. In October 2007 the Law Lords ruled that pleural plaques do not constitute an injury and therefore people who have developed pleural plaques are not entitled to compensation. They also ruled that a claim cannot be brought for anxiety caused by a diagnosis of pleural plaques.
Thompsons Today
The firm continues to be actively involved in exploring new areas of law to secure and protect the rights of employees and continues to bring major litigation for the victims of asbestos exposure and mining related conditions.
Additionally Thompsons is involved with international issues, using our expertise in the field of industrial disease to help, for example, South African miners and their families to win a landmark settlement.
Return to 85 Years of Law
Copyright © Clear Answers 2002 - 2008.