Freedom of Choice

It has been reported in the Claims Magazine today that Donns, a Claimant firm of solicitors in Manchester has gone into administration. Please see the attached link for further details http://bbm-news.net/pinews40/FOB-F7Y-D220HPCK2E-AGK82-1/industry.aspx?dm_i=FOB,R2IV,20HPCK,26POQ,1

It appears that many clients will now be contacted by Irwin Mitchell and be invited to transfer their file to this alternative firm. Given that Donns acted for clients nationwide there may be many local clients who would like to use this opportunity to enlist the services of a local solicitor rather than Irwin Mitchell. If any client wishes to exercise their freedom of choice, Rogers & Norton can assist and we would be more than happy to discuss any potential cases and arrange the transfer of files to this practice if required.

For more information please contact our Personal Injury experts on (pi@rogers-norton.co.uk or call Mark Hambling or Tim Nobbs on 01603 666001.

Higher payouts for elderly victims of asbestos

In a recent case a 92 year old man (Mr Dennis Ball) suffering from Mesothelioma an asbestos-related cancer has been awarded £73,890 damages by the High Court.

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lungs which is notorious for its incurability and for the pain caused to its victims. Mr Ball had been exposed to asbestos at Sutton Colliery and Moorgreen Colliery, both in Notts, where he had worked between 1967 and 1985. As a consequence of the disease Mr Ball was forced to leave his home where he had lived independently and move into a nursing home.

In the landmark ruling, Mr Ball received £50,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity which was £15,000 higher than the recommended figure. The judgment being contrary to legal guidelines that recommended a pay out of £35,000 when a victim was of an age that meant the duration of pain and suffering was relatively short.

The High Court judgment stated that “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.”

The defendants in the case had tried to argue that, because Mr Ball was 92 and only had a short life expectancy, the amount of asbestos compensation he received should be reduced accordingly.

Mr Ball’s legal team argued that despite Mr Ball’s age and the fact that he had only had a few months to live, he should be entitled to the same level of damages as a younger person or someone who could expect to live longer.

The ruling makes it clear that for however long a victim lives following their diagnosis, they should be appropriately compensated for the pain and suffering they endure, and surely leads the way for other elderly claimants to receive settlements which reflect the pain and distress the disease causes, regardless of their age.