In order to recover damages a claimant in a personal injury claim must establish that the defendant caused or made a material contribution to the accident/contraction of disease. As will be seen below, there is an exception to this rule in one specific area. This issue is far from straightforward, from both a legal and a medical standpoint. The medical position From a medical standpoint, different considerations apply to the various types of disease that can be contracted by reason of exposure to asbestos. Some conditions are aggravated, or the effects increased, by further exposure to asbestos. Other conditions, once contracted, are wholly unaffected by continued exposure. Some conditions can be contracted by a single instance of exposure to asbestos (indeed by the inhalation of a single fibre of asbestos). The medical differences have led the courts to draw a distinction between what are referred to as divisible and non-divisible conditions. Different tests and rules apply to causation issues depending on whether the condition is classified as divisible or non-divisible. Returning

This Practice Note outlines what a claimant must prove in an asbestos claim. It also considers pleural plaques claims, limitation issues including section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims and the special procedural rules for mesothelioma claims. Elements of the claim A claimant who has developed disease as a result of exposure to asbestos needs to prove the following elements in order to pursue their claim. A duty of care and/or a statutory duty on the part of the individual/company that exposed them to asbestos The duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that a person was not exposed to a foreseeable risk of asbestos-related injury. In the case of Asmussen v Filtrona, the claim was dismissed because on the prevailing standards and general knowledge regarding the dangers of exposure to asbestos of the time, it could not be said that the risk of injury ought to have been foreseen. See Practice Notes: Asbestos—the common law duty of care and Asbestos—statutory

This Practice Note deals with the different types of asbestos, methods of exposure and the main asbestos-related diseases. It also looks at the development of therapies such as immunotherapy for the treatment of mesothelioma, the recoverability of the cost of such treatments and the use of periodical payments orders. Practical guidance is also provided in relation to obtaining medical evidence. It is essential for those pursuing personal injury claims on behalf of claimants who have contracted disease as a result of exposure to asbestos to have an understanding about the nature of the substance and the serious, often terminal, medical conditions that can be suffered by those exposed to it. Types of asbestos Asbestos is the generic term used for a group of six naturally occurring silicate minerals composed of long, thin, fibrous crystals. In the 1970s and the 1980s, asbestos was extensively mined in a number of countries around the world, with the leading producers being Canada and South Africa. Asbestos, in its various forms, was very commonly used in industry and in construction until

This Practice Note reviews the statutory duties imposed on defendants in relation to asbestos claims, focusing on the evolving regulatory framework introduced from 1931 to control employee exposure. It also considers the impact of the long latency period for asbestos on the application of these duties, alongside an overview of the developing case law in this area. For detailed guidance on the common law duty of care in relation to asbestos claims see Practice Note: Asbestos—the common law duty of care. Breach of duty—statutory obligations Note: this Practice Note refers to statutory instruments which have been revoked. Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 was enacted on 1 October 2013 and amended by section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 so that civil liability no longer arises from a breach of a workplace regulation in respect of accidents or exposure on or after 1 October 2013. This amendment reverses over 100 years of health and safety law but is not retrospective. Accordingly, where there has been exposure

This Practice Note examines the common law duty of care in asbestos-related personal injury claims. It outlines the legal principles governing duty and breach, includes key cases relating to low level exposure and considers whether a risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable. It also explains disclosure obligations. Often, the most difficult hurdles to overcome are proving that a claimant was exposed to asbestos and by whom. The duty of care In most cases the establishment of a duty of care will not be problematic. Employers clearly owe a common law duty of care to their employees. That duty encompasses an obligation not to negligently expose employees to the risk of development of an asbestos-related disease. Since 1931, there has been an ever-increasing number of statutory duties imposed on employers in respect of the risks created by asbestos exposure. These are considered in Asbestos—statutory duty of care. While not quite as straightforward, few difficulties ought to be encountered in establishing a duty of care to self-employed workers and sub-contractors who are invited onto

The residuary estate Section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) defines the residuary estate as the residue of money and any investment for the time being representing the same, including any part of the estate of the deceased that may be retained unsold and if not required for payment of funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, debts and other liabilities and pecuniary legacies. The residuary estate will not necessarily comprise only cash and will usually include other assets that have not been sold or distributed during the course of administration. Once any outstanding debts (including tax liabilities) and all legacies have been paid, the personal representatives (PRs) need to establish what is in the residuary estate, ie the remaining assets or amount available for distribution to the residuary beneficiaries. Therefore in order to ascertain the residue, the PRs must first: • finalise the tax position, and • deal with administration expenses Income tax to the date of death Completing the tax return If the PRs have not been able to use the Tell

Asda Stores Ltd has been fined £640,000 and ordered to pay £15,115 in prosecution costs and a victim surcharge of £2,000 for four offences relating to the sale of unsafe food past its use-by date at two of its Cardiff branches. Shared Regulatory Services (SRS) inspections conducted between January and June 2024 found more than 100 food items past their use-by-date—some by up to seven days—including high-risk items such as meat and dairy products. The affected stores were located at Capital Retail Park, on Leckwith Road and the Pentwyn Superstore, at Dering Road, Pontprennau.

Law360: A group of retail workers for the Asda supermarket chain urged an employment tribunal on Monday 9 September 2024 to find that their work is of equal value to warehouse employees, in the opening of the UK's largest-ever private sector equal pay claim.

Knowsley Council has prosecuted Asda Stores Ltd for selling food past its use by date at its Huyton Lane superstore, in breach of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2996. The retailer pleaded guilty to six offences and was fined £130,000, with £11,000 in costs awarded to the Council. The case followed inspections in February and March 2024, during which Environmental Health officers found 59 items on sale after their use by date had expired. The Council had previously advised the company to improve its date-checking processes, but further expired items were found during follow-up inspections. Use by dates are applied to perishable foods that may pose health risks if consumed after expiry. The prosecution follows similar cases in which Asda received substantial fines from Derby City Council and Cornwall Council for selling food past its use by date.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 September 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the proposed merger of Ashford St Peter's NHS Foundation Trust and Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust. The CMA cleared the merger after a phase 2 investigation on 16/09/2015. Latest developments On 16 September 2015, the CMA unconditionally cleared the transaction, confirming its provisional findings . Parties Ashford and St Peter's NHS Foundation Trust (Ashford and St Peter's) and Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust (Royal Surrey). Ashford and St Peter's have a total of 570 beds in two hospitals, in Ashford and Chertsey, and offers general hospital services to more than 380,000 people in Surrey. Royal Surrey has 520 beds in one hospital in Guildford, and offers general hospital services to over 320,000 people. Market(s) Supply of NHS healthcare services. There are separate product markets for: • acute elective services

In short, we are not aware of any rule preventing a firm of solicitors insisting that all correspondence be provided by post. However, whether it would be acceptable or sensible to do so may depend on the circumstances. Similarly, although there are no specific rules on the manner in which solicitors engaged in litigation should correspond, guidance on the correct approach can be found in a number of places, in particular: • chapter 11 of the SRA Handbook • the SRA Warning Letter dated 24 August 2017 concerning offensive communications Outcome (11.1) of the SRA Handbook requires that solicitors do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either their professional or personal capacity. So while it might be acceptable to require that an opposing firm of solicitors

The price at which a dealer will sell a security to an investor. Also known as offer price.