Thursday, 12 April 2007

TUC Risks 7th April 2007


Reported the following

Dockers win asbestos appeal

Hundreds of former dock workers can sue the government for compensation for asbestos-related illnesses, thanks to court victory this week. The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court test case decision last year that the government is liable to compensate former dock workers. The test case was brought on behalf of Robert Thompson, a 65-year-old former docker with asbestos-related disease, and Winifred Rice, whose docker husband Edward died in 2000 of mesothelioma, aged 67. Lawyers for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) took the case to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to reverse the high court ruling. A successful appeal would have blocked the dockers' compensation claims. The appeal decision will allow hundreds to be compensated by the government instead of them hunting in vain for liable dock employers that no longer exist.

Kevin Johnson, a partner at law firm John Pickering and Partners who acted for Mr Thompson and Mrs Rice, said it is right that the DTI, the government department acting on behalf of former dock labour boards, has been made to take responsibility. 'The Court of Appeal has given former dock workers and their families the lifeline to financial security that they so badly needed,' he said. 'By the time these men become ill through asbestos, they can't trace and pursue many of the private dock companies that employed them. But the dock labour boards knew they were exposing the men to harm by allowing them to work unprotected.'

More asbestos deaths as dangers remain

Workers are continuing to be killed by asbestos exposures - but employers continue to take deadly risks putting a new generation in danger. An unnamed widow from Chorley, Lancashire, has received £295,000 in compensation after her husband, who was exposed to asbestos as a 15-year-old apprentice engineer for British Rail, died of the asbestos cancer mesothelioma. She said: 'I took on the case after his death and Amicus and Thompsons have been very supportive. I am glad it has come to a close now. No amount of money can bring him back, but it means things will be a little easier.'

Another ex-railway worker, Frederick Allen, (see previous posts in this blog) has been awarded damages of £128,500 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The 70-year-old's former employers, British Rail and Swindon Pressings, agreed to settle the case before it went to trial. Mr Allen, of Wooton Bassett, was represented by Brigitte Chandler of Charles Lucas & Marshall. She said: 'Due to Mr Allen's illness we had to progress this claim very quickly.

We were able to obtain early judgment against the defendants who finally agreed to settle the night before the trial, when the damages would have been assessed.' GMB this week warned that former workers at a North Shields firm, Smiths Shiprepairers, based in North Shields, may have to wait for years for compensation for asbestos-related conditions because the firm and its insurers are in liquidation. Normally under these circumstances the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) would meet the liabilities of the employer, but says it will not pay out until the receivers have confirmed there are no other assets available for the company to meet the asbestos claims.

The union is also concerned that workers continue to be placed at risk by asbestos cowboys. The warning from GMB Northern came after North East Environmental Ltd, based in North Tyneside was fined £4,600 at North Shields Magistrates Courts for not holding a licence for the removal of asbestos. Regional secretary of the GMB, Tom Brennan said: 'Unscrupulous companies think they can avoid the red tape and extra costs by not applying for a licence to remove asbestos when one is needed. GMB members should protect themselves by ensuring their employers are disposing of asbestos correctly. They should report any incidents of the incorrect disposal of asbestos to their union health and safety representative.'

To read the full newsletter click on the link below:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-13170-f0.cfm

No comments: