 |
Rothwell -v- Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd and Another; Fairmays (A Firm) -v- Palmer
|
| |||
| CA
26 January 2006 Longmore LJ, Smith LJ, Lord Phillips CJ |
Personal Injury | ||
| Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques was yet insufficient as damge to found a claim. Held: The defendants appeals succeeded. The claimants had three possible claims, none of which on their own would amount to a basis for a claim, and the three could not be aggregated to construct a claim. Pleural plaques are the most common development from exposure to asbestos, but are themselves symptomless. They are a necessary pre-condition to the development later of other asbestos related conditions. Negligence is actionable only on proof of damage. Though historically liability had been found for pleural plaques, this was a matter of policy, and the law had changed since Cartledge v Jopling: 'there is no legal precedent in this country, beyond first instance decisions, for aggregating three heads of claim which, individually, could not found a cause of action, so as to constitute sufficient damage to give rise to a legal claim. ' As to the claims for anxiety: 'Anxiety is a form of psychiatric prejudice that is less serious than one of the recognised forms of psychiatric injury. The law does not recognise a duty to take reasonable care not to cause anxiety. It does not even recognise a duty to take reasonable care not to cause psychiatric injury. Control mechanisms, the creatures of policy, restrict the circumstances in which a defendant will be liable for causing foreseeable psychiatric injury. ' |
| ||
| Judgment Links: Bailii | |||
|
| |||
| ChD
31 January 2006 Evans-Lombe J |
Litigation Practice | ||
| The defendant appealed a decision not to set aside a judgment obtained against him by default. Whilst he retained a property in England, he lived in Ethiopia. The claim was served at the address in England, but was redirected to another address in Ethiopia. Held: The appeal suceeded. The proceedings had not been served out of the jurisdiction. The defendant had not in fact been aware of their issue. The domicile of the defendant was not a relevant issue. As to 'the difficulties of claimants seeking to serve proceedings on a defendant for whom they did not have an accepted address for service but who they suspect may be absent abroad or become so . . . this difficulty can be met by the issue of concurrent proceedings for service abroad in respect of which an order for alternative service on the last known address of the defendant within the jurisdiction can be obtained. ' |
| ||
| Statute(s) referred to: Civil Procedure Rules 6.5 10.3 | |||
| Judgment Links: Bailii | |||
The Big Figure - As we add a case, the cases it cites are either already in the dataset, or are new to us. The 'Big Figure' is the ratio of such found cases. It measures our overall coverage. Just now, the Big Figure is 49.%. There is a very high chance of finding the case you want in lawindexpro. In fact it underestimates that chance. The figure is growing, but is already significantly higher than for any other single electronic service.
The links on this page allow you to explore lawindexpro. Subscribers have use of our flexible and powerful search facility.
lawindexpro is a case law database with the best coverage, and the most intuitive way of presenting case law.
Subscriptions are available by card payment, on invoice, or standing order, or through internet banking. We provide evaluation accounts to companies and academic institutions.
[ Subscribe to lawindexpro ]
[ Please contact me / Quote me ] [ Suggest a case ] [ Deregister ]
lawindexpro is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road Brighouse HD6 2AG
0772 406 1364 - ds@lawindexpro.co.uk - www.lawindexpro.co.uk