Summary of Recent Cases – Substantive Law


Interpretation Of Trigger Date For Employers’ Liability Insurers To Indemnify In Mesothelioma Cases

Durham v. Bai (Run Off), CA, 8/10/10

The Court of Appeal held that, in relation to mesothelioma claims, where an employers’ liability insurance policy covered employers for “injury sustained” by their employees in the course of their employment, the insurers’ liability to indemnify the employers was not triggered unless the policy was in force when the disease manifested itself in the form of a tumour. Where the policy covered employers for “disease contracted” by employees in the course of their employment, the insurers’ liability to indemnify arose on the date of the inhalation of the asbestos dust which caused the disease.

Guidance As To Correct Approach To Suitability Under The Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regulations 1992

Threlfall v. Hull City Council, CA, 20/10/10

The Court of Appeal handed down guidance as to the correct approach to reg. 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. Ordinarily, the court’s first task was to determine whether reg. 4 applied at all; it applied wherever a residual risk of harm arose and which was more than de minimis or so trivial that it should be ignored. The next question for the court was whether the equipment prevented or adequately controlled the identified risk of injury. Only if that question was answered in the affirmative would the need to consider the requirements of reg.4(3) arise. If the question was answered in the negative, the equipment would be unsuitable irrespective of how appropriate it may be. The correct interpretation of “adequately control the risk” in reg. 4(3)(d) is that the equipment should prevent a significant injury. Further, the Court of Appeal stated that the suitability of any protective equipment had to be judged at the time the equipment was provided, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.

Reinstitution Of Fresh Proceedings Following Strike Out Of Claim For Failure To Serve In Time Not An Abuse Of Process

Aktas v. Adepta, CA, 22/10/10

The Court of Appeal held that the reinstitution of a personal injury claim, which had previously been struck out for a failure to serve the claim form and particulars in time, in a second action outside of limitation, was not an abuse of process.

November 13, 2010 · Editorial Team · Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases