header-logo header-logo

09 July 2015
Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Negligence fee victory for Mesothelioma sufferers

Welcome court fee U-turn for mesothelioma cases

Mesothelioma sufferers will not be asked to spend their government pay-out on court fees if they bring a negligence claim, after Justice Secretary Michael Gove conceded defeat ahead of a judicial review.

Mesothelioma sufferers faced the prospect of paying up to £10,000 in court fees to bring a claim, after the government controversially hiked court fees for civil proceedings in March 2015. However, they can now apply for a fee remission without a statutory pay-out counting towards the “disposable capital” threshold.

Lawyers for the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK and mesothelioma sufferers Ian Doughty and Carole Sloper brought a legal challenge, arguing that mesothelioma sufferers, whose terminal lung condition is caused by exposure to asbestos, are typically of modest means—their illness makes them disabled within the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

As they will have received a lump sum award of about £15,000 under the Pneumoconiosis Etc Workers’ Compensation) Act, they will usually not qualify for the fee remissions scheme, which has a threshold of £16,000 in “disposable capital”. Their claim will be worth £150,000 to £300,000 so they would therefore need to pay up to £10,000 up front in order to bring a negligence claim.

Their lawyers argued that mesothelioma sufferers would be prevented from bringing a claim because they could not be expected to give up a large part of their disposable capital in the last months of their lives.

A judicial review hearing was scheduled for later this month. However, Gove agreed last week to exclude mesothelioma compensation awards from the definition of “disposable capital” and will now place an amending statutory instrument to that effect before Parliament.

Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll