Asbestos victims successfully challenge change in conditional fee/ATE costs rules

8 October 2014 by


malignantmesothelioma1Whitston (Asbestos Victims Support Victims Support Groups Forum UK)  v Secretary of State for Justice and the Association of British Insurers (Interested Party) [2014] EWHC 3044 – read judgment

Jeremy Hyam and Kate Beattie of 1 Crown Office Row acted for the Claimant in this case. They had nothing to do with the writing of this post.

In April 2013 the rules permitting recovery of success fees under Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and After The Event (ATE) insurance premiums changed in response to the Jackson proposals – with one exception, namely in respect of mesothelioma claims.

This case concerns the Lord Chancellor’s intention to bring costs rules in mesothelioma claims in line with other claims.

As many of you will know, mesothelioma is an industrial disease caused by the inhalation of asbestos. It is a rare form of cancer which  generally does not become apparent until many years after exposure to asbestos, a feature which at least in the past has led to real problems when mounting a claim against those responsible for the exposure. Once the cancer does become symptomatic its progression is rapid. Most sufferers survive for less than 12 months from the onset of symptoms. Yet the effects of the disease over the period from the onset of symptoms to death are hugely painful and debilitating. This combination of factors means that litigation in relation to mesothelioma is unusual in comparison with many other types of litigation involving personal injury or industrial disease. In almost every case in which a claim is made for damages for mesothelioma the effective defendant is an insurance company.

The claimant was the chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum which represents ten different asbestos victims support groups throughout the United Kingdom. The Forum acts as a representative body for those afflicted with asbestos related diseases in respect of legal and political issues arising from such diseases. They challenged the decision of the Lord Chancellor to change the rules  so that mesothelioma claimants were no longer excluded from the legislation prohibiting recovery of success fees and ATE premiums as well as the base costs  carried out under a CFA. Section 48 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”) sets out in clear terms that the Lord Chancellor should carry out a review of the likely effect of removing the recoverability  of success fees and ATE premiums in claims for damages for diffuse mesothelioma.

When the Lord Chancellor did so, in December 2013, he decided that mesothelioma claimants could no longer recover success fees and ATE premiums from insurance defendants. The review was announced by way of a written ministerial statement on the 4th December 2013, identifying the consultation leading up to the review and stating that 100 responses had been elicited. He said:

The Government does not believe that the case has been made for mesothelioma cases to be treated differently, in particular by comparison to other personal injuries, which can also have profound consequences for the sufferer.

The claimant submitted that there had been inadequate consultation leading up to this decision, defeating the legitimate procedural expectations of mesothelioma claimants following the successful outcome of their claims. He also argued that  the decision of the Lord Chancellor in this case was Tameside irrational because he failed to acquaint himself with the relevant material and to ask himself the right question (Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M.B.C. [1977] A.C. 1014).

Davis J considered that he did not need to resolve the Tameside dispute in determining the issue before him:

The question I have to answer is simple: did the Lord Chancellor carry out a proper review of the likely effects of the LASPO reforms on mesothelioma claims as Section 48 required him to do?

Having considered in detail the form of the consultation, the judge concluded that a proper review had not been carried out. No reasonable Lord Chancellor faced with the duty imposed on him by Section 48 of the Act would have considered that the exercise in fact carried out fulfilled that duty.

I do not find that a consultation exercise per se was an inappropriate means of fulfilling the duty. Rather, the nature of this consultation meant that it did not permit the Lord Chancellor to do so.

The fact was that the Lord Chancellor, by reason of the course he adopted, did not review the likely effects of the LASPO on mesothelioma cases in any meaningful sense. This was not a case in which the procedural failing was minor or technical in nature. Whilst it was clear that the Government had a clear view about the merits of applying the LASPO reforms to mesothelioma cases, there had not been a proper review as required by Section 48.

The judge indicated that he would hear argument from the parties as to the appropriate relief, but in view of his conclusion on the issue of whether there had been a proper review, his preliminary view was that he should simply make a declaration that the Lord Chancellor had failed to carry out a review as required by Section 48. The statutory consequence of such a declaration must be that Sections 44 and 46 could not be brought into force in relation to proceedings relating to a claim for damages in respect of diffuse mesothelioma. It was now for the Lord Chancellor to carry out a proper review of the likely effects of the LASPO reforms in whatever manner he concluded would permit him reasonably to achieve the required purpose. 

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

 

 

2 comments


  1. Hugh Murphy says:

    You will everything about Asbestos except the cover up at Belfast Docks, whereby the Dockers Trade Union, the [the once great and militant ITGWU, and now the Lapdog SIPTU] became corrupted by the employers and ordered the Dockers to discharge Asbestos with out protection. See http://www.siptupresidentjackoconnorexposed.com – Sackedbymyunion on Twitter and numerous articles on the web – PLUS – “my lungs are full of Asbestos on Indymedia Ireland.
    I know its a waste of time writing this as you will not post it.

    Hugh Muprhy

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Hugh – we are happy to post comments which are relevant. Since this post is about asbestos, your comment is relevant, but in the past I have refrained from posting your comments in relation to posts which are not related to asbestos. All the best, Adam

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: