An occupational disease is an illness, condition or disorder caused or materially contributed to by a person’s work or working environment, typically arising from prolonged exposure rather than a single accident. In legal practice it is central to employers’ liability, industrial disease claims, social security benefits and workers’ compensation.Across the UK and Ireland, specific occupational diseases (for example certain respiratory diseases, dermatitis, vibration-related conditions, noise-induced hearing loss and some cancers) are listed in statutory schemes for state benefits and reporting duties, such as prescribed diseases and reportable conditions under health and safety legislation. The term itself is also used more broadly in negligence, breach of statutory duty and insurance disputes as a descriptive expression rather than a single, uniform statutory definition.Key legal issues include establishing causation (that work significantly contributed to the disease), foreseeability of risk, limitation periods (often running from date of knowledge rather than exposure), and identification of responsible employers and insurers. Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though the detailed lists of prescribed or compensable diseases and procedural rules differ between jurisdictions.

This Practice Note considers the principles governing apportionment in occupational disease claims. It explains the distinction between divisible and indivisible diseases, the relationship between material contribution and the extent of liability and the different approaches required when allocating responsibility between defendants and insurers. It also considers uninsured periods, insolvent employers and insurers and the steps practitioners can take to identify historic employers’ liability insurance. The claimant’s entitlement to damages, contribution between defendants and allocation between insurers are separate questions. An allocation appropriate to one question should not be applied automatically to another. In particular, the absence of insurance does not itself reduce an employer’s liability and a defendant’s proportionate contribution to exposure does not invariably limit the claimant’s recovery to that proportion. Material contribution Before considering apportionment, the analysis should distinguish four stages: • causation—did the defendant’s breach cause or materially contribute to the injury, or does an exceptional material-increase-in-risk test apply? • extent of liability—is the defendant responsible for the whole injury or only an identifiable part? • contribution between defendants—are

An occupational hazard is a risk of injury, illness or other harm that arises from the nature of a worker’s job or working environment, rather than from random or unrelated causes. In legal practice, the term is used in health and safety, employment, personal injury and industrial disease claims to describe foreseeable work-related risks that an employer must identify, assess and, so far as reasonably practicable, control.“Occupational hazard” is a descriptive expression rather than a defined statutory term, but it underpins employers’ common law and statutory duties across the UK and Ireland, including duties to provide a safe system of work, safe plant and equipment, and adequate training and supervision. It is central to concepts such as “foreseeability”, “reasonably practicable” precautions and vicarious liability.Typical examples include exposure to hazardous substances, repetitive strain, noise, manual handling, workplace violence and psychosocial risks such as stress. Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although precise obligations and terminology derive from differing health and safety and employment legislation and case law in each jurisdiction.

PAM Group, an occupational health provider, has published a report into the causes of employee health struggles in the workplace. The study, which analysed 135,000 occupational health referrals, revealed that neurodivergence has become the third most common reason for occupational health referrals, following mental health and musculoskeletal conditions, with one in ten employees now referred for support with neurodivergent conditions (autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia). This reflects the sharp increase in employment tribunal cases, particularly ADHD-related claims, which have risen more than seven-fold since 2020. As well as looking at the emerging trends around workplace struggles, the study also provides practical steps which employers can take to address them.

A workplace pension scheme, usually trust-based, established by an employer, or on behalf of a group of employers, to provide retirement benefits to employees.

Pensions Analysis: The High Court approved both issue-based representative proceedings under CPR 19.2 and a negotiated compromise resolving uncertainty over the equalisation of normal retirement ages in the Motor Industry Pension Plan following Barber. Endorsing a percentage-based settlement reflecting the parties’ assessment of litigation risk, the Court held that the compromise fairly balanced competing interests while providing certainty for the administration of a complex multi-employer scheme. The decision reinforces the Court’s pragmatic approach to representative pensions litigation, confirms the continuing utility of negotiated merits-based settlements, and demonstrates its willingness to facilitate efficient resolution where contested proceedings would produce a less satisfactory outcome. Produced in partnership with Keith Bryant KC, barrister of Outer Temple Chambers.

This Practice Note examines: • the non-discrimination rule in section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) relating to occupational pension schemes—see: Non-discrimination rule—an overview below, and • discrimination and other prohibited conduct under EqA 2010, Pt 5 in relation to payments to personal pension schemes, and the exceptions that may apply in relation to age—see: Employers’ contributions to personal pension schemes—prohibited conduct below Non-discrimination rule—an overview A 'non-discrimination rule' is a provision by virtue of which a responsible person must not: • in carrying out their functions in relation to an occupational pension scheme (see: what is an occupational pension scheme below), discriminate against another person • in relation to the scheme, harass another person • in relation to the scheme, victimise another person For further information, see: Non-discrimination rule–when it applies below. This Practice Note also deals with: • the relationship between the non-discrimination rule and the sex and maternity equality rules • the duty to make reasonable adjustments • the power to alter terms to achieve compliance • exceptions

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES This Practice Note looks at the disclosure requirements that were applicable to trustees (or managers) of occupational pension schemes up to 5 April 2014 under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1655 (the 1996 Disclosure Regulations). The 1996 Disclosure Regulations were repealed on 6 April 2014 and therefore do not apply beyond 5 April 2014. In this Practice Note, any reference to 'trustees' includes, in the context of a contract-based occupational pension scheme, the managers of the scheme. For information on disclosure requirements applicable to personal pension schemes up to 5 April 2014 under the Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/1110, see Practice Note: Personal pension schemes—disclosure requirements before 6 April 2014 [Archived]. With effect from 6 April 2014, the disclosure requirements applicable to occupational and personal pension schemes were consolidated and harmonised into one set of regulations, the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2734. For information on

A pension provided by an employer, where the pension scheme takes the form of a trust arrangement and is legally separate from the employer.

Employment analysis: Can employers avoid liability for equal pay claims through the physical separation of male-dominated and female-dominated workforces? Keira Gore of Outer Temple Chambers, one of three barristers who represented the claimants in the recent case of Brierley and others v Asda, discusses the lessons learnt so far in an equal pay claim case that we are likely to see more of in the future.

This Practice Note considers the central elements of occupational stress claims once foreseeability has been established, namely breach of duty, causation and apportionment. It examines the steps employers may reasonably be expected to take in response to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury, together with the evidential and medical issues that arise when establishing causation. The Practice Note also explores the principles governing divisible and indivisible psychiatric injury, material contribution and the assessment and apportionment of damages in complex occupational stress claims. This Practice Note is not intended to be a definitive source of all information on this topic, but to act as a source from which practitioners can begin their own research. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Occupational stress claims—liability and foreseeability. Breach of duty If it is established that a defendant could foresee imminent harm arising from a claimant’s exposure to occupational stress, the defendant will be under a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce the claimant’s exposure to unreasonable levels of occupational stress

This Practice Note examines the legal framework governing occupational stress claims and the circumstances in which an employer may be liable. It considers the development and application of the Hatton guidelines with a particular focus on foreseeability as the central issue in establishing liability. The Practice Note reviews the factors courts consider when assessing whether an employer was on notice of a risk of harm, including workload concerns, stress-related absences, employee complaints, occupational health involvement and the nature of the work being undertaken. This Practice Note is not intended to be a definitive source of all information on this topic, but to act as a source from which practitioners can begin their own research. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Occupational stress claims—breach, causation and apportionment. Occupational stress claims arise in instances where an employee suffers from a recognisable psychiatric condition (commonly depression and anxiety) as a result of their employer’s conduct. They are based on exposure to harmful levels of occupational stress, and are almost invariably,