Share
Supreme Court hear ‘leapfrog’ appeal on ‘lost years’
CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
On 11 and 12 February 2025 the Supreme Court heard the ‘leapfrog’ appeal in CCC.
The Court is set to determine whether child claimants can recover damages for ‘lost years’. The case challenges the long-standing precedent set in Croke v Wiseman [1982], which has historically prevented claims for lost future earnings where life expectancy of a child claimant is reduced; a distinction from adult claimants with reduced life expectancy.
A ruling in favour of the claimant would broaden the scope of claims brought against compensators, leading to increased damages awards in cases involving children with reduced life expectancy.
Related item: Supreme Court to hear ‘leapfrog’ appeal on ‘lost years’ claims this week
Contact: Mark Burton
Low exposure to asbestos
Kerr and others v Midlothian Council and another [20.12.24]
The claim was brought against two local authorities in Scotland. It was alleged that the deceased had contracted a peritoneal mesothelioma from working with Bunsen burner mats comprised of asbestos cement. Exposure was found to be to chrysotile and amounted to 0.001 fibre/ml years or less.
The pursuer argued that the Fairchild rule of causation applied and therefore the threshold to be met was to establish that there was a material contribution to risk.
Epidemiology evidence obtained by the defenders showed no relationship between low chrysotile exposures and peritoneal mesothelioma.
With the court’s acceptance of the second defender’s expert evidence the court looked to the approach as argued in Bannister and now for further adjudication in the Court of Appeal in Johnstone.
Aside from the method of approach for assessing materiality, Kerr is important for two additional reasons:
The court accepted there was no association between chrysotile exposure and peritoneal mesothelioma.
The court found that the Fairchild rule did not apply to the claim. Fairchild imposes a relaxed test of causation removing the need for proof of factual causation and replacing it with proof of increased risk. Here, the pursuer could not prove that the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos.
Related item: Developments in low exposure to asbestos litigation: Bannister, Johnstone, and Kerr
Contacts: Daniela Fusi, Liam Bedford, Gary Brankin
Supreme Court in Ireland consider the scope of the mandatory motor insurance obligation
Urban and Rural Recycling Ltd & RSA v Zurich [10.10.24]
The Supreme Court in Ireland held that the liability of a recycling company to an employee who suffered life-changing injuries while loading a wheelie bin onto a recycling truck was a liability that was required to be covered by the company’s compulsory motor insurance policy rather than its employer’s liability policy.
The case raised issues about the scope of the mandatory motor insurance obligation, the proper interpretation of a 2009 EU Motor Insurance Directive and Ireland’s compliance with EU law in this area. Judge Murray commented: “a complete and coherent legislative overhaul of the compulsory motor insurance obligation is long overdue.”
Related item: Liability and personal injury: 2024 in review - Ireland
Contact: David Strahan
United Kingdom
Ireland