Asbestos lung-related diseases occurred at very high rates towards the middle of the 20^th century.  Patients who were exposed decades earlier to asbestos developed asbestos related lung diseases and British asbestos workers were among the first who were found to have lung cancer related asbestos.  Most workers were exposed to asbestos whilst working in:

• mines,
• mills
• factories, or
• homes with asbestos, either in the process of carrying, installing, or removing asbestos, or while cleaning items laden with asbestos dust.

Asbestos has also been found in industries such as

• automotive repair
• boiler making
• construction
• pipe fitting and lagging of pipework, particularly in the shipbuilding industry.

Secondary exposure to asbestos is common with those who washed workers clothes that were contaminated with asbestos dust and fibres on a daily basis.

Cases of asbestos related diseases have been found amongst the people affected by the collapse of the World Trade Centre in New York.   The 9/11 dust cloud contained asbestos and other harmful contaminates.

Asbestos-related Diseases

Asbestosis

This is a lung disease causing severe scarring and inflammation of the lung tissue.  The lung is unable to expand properly and causes symptoms such as shortness of breath.  Asbestosis is typically associated with prolonged periods of exposure to asbestos.

Pleural Plaques

The most common disease associated with exposure to asbestos.  The plaques are areas of fibrosis that can appear on the chest wall.  Pleural plaques normally cause no symptoms.

Pleural Thickening

One of the early signs of malignant mesothelioma is thickening of the pleura as it becomes inflamed.  The Pleura can also thicken without the presence of malignant cells.

Malignant Mesothelioma

This disease is almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.  Meothelioma is a cancer of the thin membrane that lines the lungs.  Symptoms include chest pain, coughing and difficulty breathing.

Ball v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

This is a very sad case of a 92 year old man who developed symptoms of mesothelioma in January 2011.  At his trial in February 2012 his life expectancy had been reduced from 2.9 years to 3 months.  Mr Ball had been exposed to asbestos when he was a miner between 1967 and 1985.

Mr Ball had undergone radical surgery and was taking Oramorph for his pain.

Mr Ball lived alone in a flat but due to his deteriorating health he was placed in a nursing home.  Mr Ball continued to pay the rent on his flat in the hope that one day he would return home.

Mr Ball was awarded £50,000 in compensation by Mrs Justice Swift in the High Court which is higher than the recommended JSB guideline figure of £35,000 where the duration of the pain and suffering is relatively short.

In Mrs Justice Swift’s written judgment she said: ‘A person of any age who is informed that his or her life will be cut short by the effect of a harmful substance to which he or she has been wrongfully exposed is likely to suffer a good deal of distress.

‘Even if a deceased’s death has in the event been relatively peaceful, he or she will have been fearful since being told of the diagnosis of mesothelioma that a painful and distressing end lies in store.’

Mrs Justice Swift said: ‘I consider that the appropriate award of damages lies below the lower level of the bracket of awards identified in previous editions of the JSB guidelines, but significantly above the lower level which appears in the latest edition.’

The ruling makes it clear that regardless of the amount of time the victim lives following their diagnosis, they should be appropriately compensated for the pain and suffering they endure, and leads the way for other elderly sufferers to receive settlements which reflect the pain and suffering brought about by the disease, regardless of their age.

You have obtained Judgment against a Company which owes you money.

 Whether you will be successful in recovering any money from the Company may depend on whether or not the Company is solvent and whether you are able to complete enforcement against the Company before they go into liquidation.

If the Company accepts that it cannot pay its debts, the members can pass a special resolution that because of its liabilities it cannot continue and that they should wind up the Company. They will arrange a meeting of the Company’s creditors within 14 days of the special resolution being passed. This is known as a Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation.

It is also possible that the Company may be put into Compulsory Liquidation where the Company is ordered to be wound up by the Court. An application is made to the Court to wind up a Company. It is usually made by the petition of a creditor on the grounds that the Company cannot pay its debts.

If you have a judgment against a Company on the brink of liquidation then timing is extremely important. Unless “execution” has been completed before commencement of the winding up you will not be able to proceed unless you have some form of security. You will be treated as an unsecured creditor in the liquidation.

Under Section 183 of the Insolvency Act 1986 completion of execution is defined as:-

a)    Execution against goods – Goods have been seized and sold;

b)    Execution against property – a Final Charging Order has been obtained against the property;

c)    A Third Party Debt Order is obtained and you have received the money from the third party;

Completion of the execution must be completed by the time of the commencement of the winding up. If the Company has gone into Creditors Voluntary Liquidation then this is when the resolution is passed and if the Company has been wound up by a Court order this is when the winding up petition is presented to the Court. 

It is, therefore, necessary for you to act urgently to attempt to enforce the Judgment against the Company in order for you to be successful in recovering the money owed to you.

There has been a great deal of publicity relating to the mis-selling by banks of Payment Protection Insurance and they have made provision of billions of pounds to deal with the claims. 

The latest “scandal” relates to the selling by high street banks (mainly between 2006 and 2008, before interest rates fell to record lows) of complex derivatives to small and medium sizes businesses.  These were in the form of “interest rate swaps”; entering into this “protection” against rises in interest rates was usually made a condition of the loan facility. 

As we now know, the Bank of England base rate fell to 0.5% and has remained at that level for more than 3 years.  This has left many businesses who purchased these products with huge monthly repayments and massive “exit costs” from the products.

There have been a number of complaints about the sale of these products based on some or all of the  following; 

-          The customer did not understand what was being sold to them;

-          There was an inadequate explanation, if any, of the downside risks of the product and an emphasis only on the protection;

-          The bank could terminate the swap (eg after 5 years) but not the customer.  Indeed the exit/break costs for the customer could be extraordinarily high and this was not explained at the outset. 

-          The term of the swap was sometimes longer than the term of the loan facility.   

The claim is that the banks have not been complied with the FSA Conduct of Business Rules (COBS) and a duty of care was owed by the bank to the customer and was breached.

The FSA is currently looking into this and is expected to announce soon whether it will be conducting a full scale investigation into the matter. 

Although complaints can be made to the Financial Ombudsman, the amount of compensation payable is limited to £100,000 and costs cannot be recovered.  Therefore most claimants to date have instigated legal proceedings under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. 

No precedent has as yet been set, as the claims brought to date have been settled.  The banks will try and rely on the exclusion clause which seeks to exclude them from liability, however one of the matters that the courts will look at is whether both parties to the swap agreement were sophisticated commercial entities and there is a viable argument to be made that most of the SMEs who were sold these products do not fall into such a category.  Indeed, it is arguable that interest rate swaps should not have been sold to anyone other than “sophisticated investors” and most claimants would not fall into this category; therefore the sale was in breach of the COBS, in that it was not suitable for the customer. 

In summary, there are a number of potential grounds of challenge in respect of how and why interest rate swaps were sold and we expect the amount of claims and the level of publicity to increase going forward.

Free Wills Month brings together a group of well respected charities to offer members of the public aged 55 and over the opportunity to have their simple Wills written or updated free of charge by using participating solicitors in selected locations around England and Wales of which Ascot Lawyers are proudly participating. The campaign runs from the 1 to 31 March 2012.

CALL US NOW on 01344 783890 to make your appointment.

If you have been injured in an accident at work then it may be possible to make a claim for injury and any financial loss which has been incurred as a result of the accident.

Accidents at work can take place in many different environments and can be as a result of:-

• Inadequate training or protective equipment
• Slips or trips on debris or dangerous surfaces
• Injuries involving lifting or manual handling
• Defective machinery or dangerous machinery
• Exposure to harmful and dangerous substances
• Assaults from customers or patients in the working environment

Duty of your Employer

Your employer has a duty to provide you with a safe working environment. In order to do so they must undertake risk assessments in order to identify any possible risks or hazards and then take all reasonable steps in which to minimise these risks. So for example if you are employed to work with machinery your employer must provide you with training to work with the machinery and provide you with the relevant protective clothing and equipment.

In order to pursue a successful claim against your employer we must establish that your employer has failed in their statutory duty to provide you with a safe work place and as a direct result of this breach or failure to do so that you have suffered injury and financial loss.

Should I claim against my employer?

We appreciate that many people may be reluctant to pursue their employer following an accident at work as they fear that they may lose their employment. However, your employer has a duty to ensure that you are safe whilst you are at work and accidents at work can result long term effects from injury and significant financial loss and employers should have insurance in place to cover accidents which arise at work.

We would therefore recommend that even if you are unsure whether to claim that you contact us in order that we may discuss the claim with you and you are able to make an informed decision.

We also have an Employment Law specialist should you be experiencing other issues with your employer that you wish to seek advice on.

If you would like further legal advice on making a claim then please contact Karen Fleming at Ascot Lawyers on 01344 852847 or email on karenf@ascotlawyers.co.uk. Please be advised that we are able to offer a No Win No Fee basis to the majority of our clients.

This may result either where you are injured as a result of partaking in a sport or as a spectator at a sporting event.

Injured whilst playing a sport

Playing a physical sport always contains certain level of risk for those involved and injuries can sometimes simply be part of a game or sport. In light of this someone who plays sport accepts that there is a risk involved that they may become hurt or injured whilst taking part in a sporting activity.

However, where injury has been caused where this is not part of the game or sport then it may be possible to make a claim. For example:

• There may be a defect present on a pitch or court which could result in injury.
• A fault or defect with the sporting equipment provided.
• A dangerous or reckless act by another player.
• Inadequate supervision by a referee or umpire of the sport.

Injured whilst as a spectator at a sporting event

As a spectator you should be able to attend a sporting event and be able to watch this as safely as possible and measures must have been put in place to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of spectators.

For example that seating is a suitable distance away from the pitch and barriers are in place to avoid injury.  Risk assessments must be carried out to ensure that all steps have been taken to minimise risks to spectators as far as is practicable.

If you would like further legal advice on making a claim then please contact Karen Fleming at Ascot Lawyers on 01344 852847 or email on karenf@ascotlawyers.co.uk. Please be advised that we are able to offer a No Win No Fee basis to the majority of our clients.

Ted Started working as an outdoor clerk after leaving university in 1999 and became a Personal Injury case handler within three months. He has worked on both the Claimant and Defendant areas as a fee earner dealing largely with RTA work including working for an insurer. He moved to another firm of solicitors and was promoted to act as their Head of Personal Injury within 6 months of being at the firm, a role he fulfilled for 4 years.

He joins Ascot Lawyers on the back of having set up his own Fleet claims management company in 2008 with two colleagues from his previous firm.

Outside of the office, Ted enjoys Rugby, Cooking and having fun with his kids.

First time buyers have been reminded they will have to act quickly if they want to avoid paying stamp duty.

With only three months of the stamp duty holiday remaining, the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) has warned first time buyers time is running out to take advantage.

At present, first time buyers purchasing properties up to the value of £250,000 are exempt from having to pay stamp duty.

However, the 24 March 2012 end date for the initiative is fast approaching, after which the rules will revert to normal.

This means anyone buying a property for more than £125,000 will have to pay stamp duty of at least 1%.

It had been hoped that the holiday might be extended further in order to help keep costs down for first time buyers.

However, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement passed without an extension being granted.

“From March 2012 the holiday is well and truly over for first time buyers,” said Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the NAEA.

“Once the Government ends the tax exemption, first time buyers will face a tax of 3% on all home purchases over £250,000.

“With many first time buyers trying to purchase their first home before the tax exemption deadline, our members will be working closely with those first time buyers who are able to purchase before March 2012 to guide them through a difficult and challenging market place.”

Stay affordable, remember fees, keep a paper trail and know your maximum offer are amongst the snippets of advice that the association offers to first time buyers.

Naila graduated from the University of Leeds and qualified as a Solicitor in 2004. She gained substantial experience in defending RTA, Public, Employers and Occupiers Liability claims on behalf of the Retail Sector and Local Government Authorities whilst working for a leading law firm based in the North West.   

She moved to the area with her husband and recently joined Ascot Lawyers to deal with litigated claims. 

Naila’s interests outside of work include travelling, good food and spending time with her friends and family.

Many women who have undergone breast implants will be concerned with the recent media coverage concerning the implants supplied by the French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP). It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 PIP breast implants have been fitted in breast enlargement and reconstruction surgery in the UK between 2001 and 2010.

The faulty implants came to light in March 2010 when the MHRA (The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) issued a recall on all stocks of the PIP implants following concerns and reports regarding leakages. It was shortly after this recall that the manufacturers went into liquidation.

A subsequent investigation by the French authorities has also led to findings that the company had actually been using an unapproved form of silicone gel in the implants. Following this information the French medical authorities have advised all women in France, who have received implants supplied by PIP, to have these removed.

Meanwhile here in the UK, the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, asked an expert group led by the NHS Medical Director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh to review all available evidence and data on PIP breast implants.

Following this review, the expert group confirmed that it is undeniably the case that these implants are made up of non-medical grade silicone and therefore should not have been implanted in women in the first place.  Professor Sir Bruce Keogh stated that “The overriding consideration of the group is the safety and compassionate treatment of women with PIP implants.”

Having recognised that this will have caused great concern to women in the UK who have had PIP implants fitted, it is recommended that all women who are concerned should speak to their surgeon or GP. If following the consultation with their GP the patient still has concerns and she decides with her doctor it is right to do so, then the NHS will replace the implants if the original implants were carried out by the NHS.

The NHS offer is as follows:

1.   All women who have received an implant from the NHS will be contacted to inform them that they have a PIP implant and to provide relevant information and advice. If in the meantime NHS patients seek information about the make of their implant then this will be provided free of charge.

2.  Women who wish to will able to seek a consultation with their GP, or with the surgical team who carried out the original implant, to seek clinical advice on the best way forward.

3.  If the woman chooses, this could include an examination by imaging to see if there is any evidence that the implant has ruptured.

4.  The NHS will support removal of PIP implants if, informed by an assessment of clinical need, risk or the impact of unresolved concerns, a woman with her doctor decides that it is right to do so. The NHS will replace the implants if the original operation was done by the NHS.

The expert group has also advised that they expect the private sector to follow suit and do the same stating that “Private providers have legal obligations to their patients. The NHS will offer a package of care for its patients, and we expect the private sector to do the same”.

 Therefore where treatment has been received privately then women should contact the private clinic where the surgery and implants were carried out. However, where a clinic that implanted the PIPs no longer exists or they refuse to take any action, the patient is then entitled to NHS services whereby they will support the removal of PIP implants.

 It is important to note however, that any NHS service in that respect would not include the replacement of private cosmetic implants. The Government will pursue private clinics with all means at its disposal to avoid the taxpayer picking up the bill.

 If you have had breast implants and are concerned then we recommend that you contact your GP or surgeon and seek medical advice with regards to whether the implants should be removed.

 If you would like further legal advice on making a claim then please contact Peter Williams at Ascot Lawyers on 01344 783897 or email on peterw@ascotlawyers.co.uk. Please be advised that we are able to offer a No Win No Fee basis to the majority of our clients.