Mesothelioma meaning

Practice Note: Protective costs orders (PCOs) in environmental matters This flowchart sets out the situations relevant to protective costs orders (PCOs) in environmental law cases. For information, refer to Practice Note: Protective costs orders (PCOs) in environmental matters...

Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 467 What are the practical implications of this case? The key consequence of the ruling is the Court of Appeal’s categorical and wholesale dismissal of the ‘absolute risk approach’, put forward by the defendant in this case on the strength of obiter support from the High Court in Bannister v Freemans Public Ltd Company [2020] EWHC 1256 (QB). As a consequence of the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, those obiter remarks in Bannister should no longer be regarded as representing good law, or treated as authoritative. The judgment further confirms that it was open to the trial judge in this case to employ a ‘direct risk assessment’ to calculate the increase in the risk of a person developing mesothelioma, and that doing so was permissible on the facts. It does not, however, set a general principle that this technique is valid or appropriate in all comparable matters involving low doses of exposure, although the court’s acceptance of...

In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Civil procedure rule committee minutes Psychiatric and occupational stress Injuries caused by animals Claims involving a child Claims involving a fatality Costs and funding Other PI and Clinical negligence news LexTalk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and Clinical negligence developments MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has confirmed reduced interest rates for the Courts Funds Office (CFO) special and basic accounts. The special account rate moves from 4.75% to 4.50%, while the basic account rate shifts from 3.56% to 3.38%. Effective from 3 March 2025, the revision follows the Bank of England’s base rate cut on 6 February 2025 and is intended to ensure the CFO Service can continue to cover operational costs. See: LNB News 04/03/2025 38...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—9 April 2026 In this issue: Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Road traffic accidents Psychiatric and occupational stress Public authorities and the state Product liability Scottish claims Other PI and Clinical Negligence news New content LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Eighteenth edition of the Judicial College Guidelines is published The 18th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines has now been released, following the 17th in 2024. It remains the primary reference for practitioners and courts when assessing general damages in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. The figures have been adjusted for inflation, by reference to the Retail Prices Index as at August 2025. See: LNB News 09/04/2026 4. The latest chapter in Mazur—prayers answered and questions unanswered In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys...

Allocation In the context of insurance and reinsurance, ‘allocation’ is the process of identifying which policy covers a loss, or a share of a loss. In many claims this point never surfaces. If a driver wrecks their car, the motor insurance policy in force on the date of the accident will respond. Yet, in the smaller number of cases where it does arise, the consequences can be substantial for a (re)insurer's inwards liability and the availability of its outwards reinsurance. Consider a business that employs a worker for 40 years. During that period the worker is exposed to asbestos and, after retirement, develops mesothelioma and dies. The estate sues the former employer. The company had workers’ compensation/employers’ liability insurance throughout the employee’s service, but which policy, if any, should respond to the claim? Or take an insurer that covers a power station which later burns down. The insurer has prudently purchased facultative reinsurance covering the particular risk and treaty reinsurance spanning all of its power...

For guidance on causation in clinical negligence matters, refer to Practice Note: Causation and material contribution in clinical negligence claims. Did the breach cause the injury to the claimant? The baseline for proving causation is the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered the harm in question? In a personal injury claim alleging negligence or breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show the defendant owed and breached a duty, and that this breach resulted in loss or damage. It is helpful to consider the claim in key components: did a duty of care exist? was that duty breached by the defendant? is there a causal link between the breach and the loss or damage? what is the nature and scope of the loss or damage? The claimant bears the burden of proving the breach caused the damage by establishing that, but for the breach, the damage would not...

PI & Clinical Negligence horizon scanner—May 2024 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It distils the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at 30 April 2024. For matters predating this horizon scanner, please refer to PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments Judicial College Guidelines, 17th Edition now available on Lexis+ — The 17th Edition of the Judicial College Guidelines is now accessible on Lexis+, via Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service (BPILS), Division IX, Quantum Summaries. See: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service, Division IX, Quantum Summaries. Tenth edition of the King’s Bench guide published — The tenth edition of the King’s Bench Guide was issued on 19 April 2024...

Claim Number: [ insert number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION Claim for Fatal Mesothelioma BETWEEN: [ name of Claimant ] Claimant (acting as Personal Representative of the estate of [ insert name ], Deceased) -and- B COMPANY LTD Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The claimant The claimant is the widow of [ name ] and serves as the personal representative of that estate (‘the deceased’). The claimant issues this claim for the estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, and for herself, as the deceased’s dependant widow, under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976...

Dear [ insert organisation name ] URGENT—LIVING MESOTHELIOMA CLAIMANT YOU MUST DEAL WITH THIS LETTER IMMEDIATELY Re: Our Client: Address: Date of Birth: National Insurance Number: Your Previous Employee: Date of Birth: Date of Death: National Insurance Number: Place of Work: We act for the above-named client in a claim for damages for personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos, resulting from asbestos dust brought into the home on the work clothing of a family member, [ insert relation eg spouse or parent and insert their name ], during their employment with [ insert employer’s name ] between [ insert dates ]. Accordingly, the claim is addressed to you. This correspondence is sent in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims. Please confirm the identity of your insurers. Please note that your insurers must be notified without delay and failure to do so may affect your insurance cover. We enclose...

In the High Court of Justice [ [ SPECIFY DIVISION ] ] [ [ INSERT LOCATION ] DISTRICT REGISTRY ] Claim No: [ insert number ] Between: C (Widow and executrix of the Estate of [ name of deceased ] (deceased)) – Claimant and D LTD – Defendant Defence Unless stated otherwise, the paragraph numbers used in this Defence correspond to the paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim dated [ insert date ]. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted, subject to inspection of the grant of probate. In relation to paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant is required to prove both the identity of the deceased’s employer and the length of the alleged employment with the Defendant; save that the Defendant admits that the HMRC employment schedule records the Defendant as the deceased’s employer from 1961 to 1967. Otherwise, the Defendant holds no employment documentation for the deceased and has...

In occupational disease matters, it is common that the claimant was employed many years ago by an entity that has ceased trading, changed its name, or shifted liabilities within intricate corporate groups. Defence solicitors may challenge the identity of any proposed defendant within their defence, and resolving such questions well before the commencement of proceedings is always desirable. Accurately naming the parties to the claim from the outset is particularly important in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs later on, for example in having to discontinue against a party and/or amend the claim form, and to prevent any potential problems in respect of limitation...