![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201607.jpg)
Compensation and better treatment for asbestos-related diseases
[ch 6: pages 112-113]Compensation Act 2006
The Compensation Act 2006 was enacted as a result of union campaigning and states that where workers have been exposed to asbestos by more than one employer and have developed asbestos-related illnesses, they can claim compensation from all the employers concerned. They do not have to prove which exposure was to blame. In legal terms, each employer is jointly and severally liable.
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme
In February 2015, the government revised the mesothelioma compensation scheme rules and made compensation rise to match 100 per cent of average civil claims, up from the previous 80 per cent. The scheme paid out over £19 million in its first 10 months, and was aimed at mesothelioma sufferers unable to claim compensation as their employer or employer’s liability insurer is untraceable. Due to the length of time between asbestos exposure and cancer diagnosis, many employers and their insurers no longer exist and so the liable successor organisations are often untraceable.
However in January 2016, the government announced that the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2015/16 would be reduced to £23.2m from £32m in 2014/2015. The TUC said that the government should maintain the levy at the previous year’s level and use any surplus to extend the scheme to all victims of asbestos, or for research into treatment.
It also pointed out that the government made a commitment during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill to set a levy of at least 3% of gross working premium on insurers to fund the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payments Scheme. This was a sum insurers said they could afford without passing costs on to customers. It could raise sufficient funding to guarantee 100% compensation for all future scheme applicants and provide compensation to victims of other asbestos diseases. However, ministers are now only charging the insurers the cost of the scheme.
Details of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme and the “2008 scheme” and how to apply are available at: https://www.gov.uk/diffuse-mesothelioma-payment/overview.
Lawyers representing the family of a man who developed mesothelioma said that a landmark judgment handed down in the Supreme Court in October 2014 would protect the rights of future sufferers to receive a fair settlement to provide for their families after their death:
Delivery driver Percy McDonald was exposed to asbestos dust when he regularly visited Battersea Power Station to pick up waste products in the 1950s. The defendant argued that Mr McDonald and his family could not receive compensation because he was not employed by the occupier of the site and because their primary work was not directly involved in the asbestos industry.
However lawyers who represented Percy’s family after he died, just a week before the Supreme Court hearing, said the ruling in the family’s favour clarifies the law and gives greater protection to current and future victims of industrial diseases and accidents.
The majority Judgment provided guidance on several key points of law:
• It establishes that under the Factories Act the occupier of the premises is responsible for the welfare of the people on site, not just those that it directly employs; and
• It states that the Asbestos Industry Regulations apply to all factories using asbestos – not just those involved in the asbestos industry.
McDonald (Deceased) v National Grid Electricity Transmission plc [2014] UKSC 53