UK Government to Speak "Soon" on Whether to Support Payments for Persons With Pleural Plaques Attributed to Asbestos Inhalation

A prior post on this blog described the UK government issuing a Consultation paper requesting views and information on, among other things, whether it should support legisaltion to cause compensation to be payable persons diagnosed as having pleural plaques attributed to asbestos inhalation. The UK government had said it would provide its position during November 2008, but did not do so. On February 11, 2009, however, Gordon Brown publicly said the Government will "soon" announce its view.


I submitted to the UK government a detailed outline of reasons why my opinion is that payments should not be made for pleural plaques. The paper is available here.

Below is the Q and A that prompted the comments by Gordon Brown.

_______________________________________________
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-02-11a.1360.3


House of Commons debates
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister



Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone, Labour) The Prime Minister will be aware that it is almost 18 months since the Law Lords made a decision denying compensation to people suffering from pleural plaques as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos. Does he agree with me that we can restore justice and fairness only if that Law Lords' decision is overturned?



Gordon Brown (Prime Minister; Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Labour) I met my hon. Friend last week and we talked about this very issue. It is very important that we get a resolution following the court judgment on pleural plaques. The Secretary of State for Justice has been looking at this matter and talking to his colleagues right across Government about the implications of what can be done, and I can assure my hon. Friend that an announcement will be made very soon.

Exiting the Tort System - Pa. Opinion on Challenging a Statute Limiting a Corporation's Tort Liability

Some corporations that made or sold various allegedly "toxic" or harmful products are today looking for and pursuing all kinds of paths to try to exit the "tort system." One such entity is Crown Cork & Seal, which has been part of an ongoing saga in Pennsylvania that arises from a special statute limiting liability for an entity in its position. A recent lower court opinion is a victory for the corporation, but an appeal seems inevitable. The proceedings are described in a law.com article here. The opinion is online here.

One wonders whether or how much extra-territorial effect would be given to this statute by, for example, a court in a nation overseas that may have been place where the corporation's products were sold.

Australia - Class Action Funders, and Competition Between Lawyers to Pursue Securities Class Action Claims

A Mondaq article from the Deacons law firm provides an interesting example of how entrepreneurial claiming is changing the face of litigation. The article is a brief but illuminating account of current, ongoing competition between multiple securities class action claims brought by different law firms, with some of the litigation financed by professional litigation funders. As a result of the litigation funders, the class claims are not identical, adding a new wrinkle to the mix as to coordination of litigation.

Back to Blogging After Unexpected Events

My personal life and work took some unexpected turns over the last several weeks, but now it's back to blogging.