Sponsored Ads
Twitterfeed
- Changes to asbestos regulations – CAR 2012 - The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 came into force on 6 April 201... http://t.co/dj4pBtgU
- #Asbestos News: £133 million order book for Silverdell PLC http://t.co/VnyShrXR
- Bath MP Don Foster’s backing for asbestos dump protest - Bath MP Don Foster has added his voice to a campaign to sto... http://t.co/QOAlkjMp
- #asbestos Bath MP Don Foster’s backing for asbestos dump protest: Bath MP Don Foster has added his voice t... http://t.co/ZGgfsLMk #news
- INDG223(rev5): Managing asbestos in buildings A brief guide http://t.co/V6AZOCxc
- Somerset widow gets Bristol Water asbestos death payout - A Somerset woman is to get £290,000 in compensation from ... http://t.co/7RNw53LF
- #asbestos Somerset widow gets Bristol Water asbestos death payout: A Somerset woman is to get £290,000 in... http://t.co/XNksoUTa #news
- Local councils satisfy HSE on asbestos management in schools http://t.co/o3Wuk3Gm
- #asbestos Council neglected to inform tenants of asbestos disturbance: A local authority and a building co... http://t.co/0X3n6YcY #news
- Parent firm liable in “historic” asbestos case - In a judgement that could have far-reaching ramifications for UK c... http://t.co/dob1ua4w
Posts Tagged ‘asbestos exposure’
A local authority and a building contractor left a family exposed to asbestos for three days during renovation works at a house in Lincoln.
Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard that City of Lincoln Council had contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to refurbish a bathroom at a residential property. The council had identified that asbestos insulation boards were present in the room and had contacted a licensed company to remove them. But the work was never carried out and the council contacted County Waste to inspect the site to see if it was necessary for a licensed contractor to be brought in.
On 10 June 2008, one of County Waste’s workers visited the property, but instead of inspecting the boarding, he prised off the panels with a crowbar and broke them into pieces. Some of the debris was left on the bathroom floor, and the worker walked around the property for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
The tenant family complained to the council about the debris and a council worker visited the house on the same day to inspect the damage. He identified that the debris contained asbestos but didn’t inform the family, which was not moved to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council appeared in court on 3 June and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 8(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, for failing to put adequate procedures in place to protect workers, and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay £12,000 in costs.
In a judgement that could have far-reaching ramifications for UK companies with subsidiaries, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of an asbestosis sufferer, who sought damages against the parent company of his former employer.
The Court upheld a decision by the High Court in April last year, which ruled that Cape plc, as the parent company, was liable for the activities of its subsidiary, Cape Building Products Ltd. The appeal judgment, handed down last week (25 April), could have significant consequences for companies in the UK with domestic-based subsidiaries, as well as multi-national companies headquartered in the UK with subsidiaries in developing countries, where their operations have greater potential to cause direct harm to workers, the local environment, and consumers.
The case centered around David Chandler, 71, who was employed by Cape Building Products Limited (formerly Uxbridge Flint Brick Company), between 1959 and 1961, during which period he suffered heavy asbestos exposure. Diagnosed with asbestosis in 2007, he was unable to pursue a claim against Cape Building Products, owing to an ‘asbestosis exclusion clause’ in its insurance policy. Mr Chandler’s lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, instead decided to pursue his claim against Cape plc.
Local MPs have been criticised by campaigners for voting against a bid to stop asbestos victims losing some of their compensation in legal fees.
Peers in the House of Lords have however given mesothelioma sufferers some fresh hope by insisting that patients are exempted from handling over up to 25% of any compensation to pay their solicitors.
The issue has come up as part of wide-ranging reforms of the country’s legal system.
The Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders’ Bill aims to save £350 million a year and speed up legal proceedings.
However, mesothelioma victims stand to lose out, under the changes planned by ministers, because of a change in who pays their solicitors.
An amendment to the Bill, one of many proposed by the House of Lords, was aimed at stopping these changes but, it was overturned in the Commons by 292 votes to 256.
Derby North Labour MP Chris Williamson voted for the amendment but Conservatives Andrew Griffiths (Burton), Jessica Lee (Erewash), Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales), Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) and Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) voted against it.
Mr Williamson said it was “completely wrong” the way some MPs had voted.
THE widow of an ex-headteacher who died from asbestos exposure is urging the House of Lords to stand fast after the Government refused to exempt victims from legal costs.
Marie Hughes watched husband Phil die from cancer after coming into contact with asbestos at Brymbo Steelworks in his younger years.
The Government voted against some amendments to its controversial Legal Aid bill to exempt asbestos victims paying the costs, despite rebel Tories and Lib Dems voting the other way last week.
It will again come before the House of Lords tonight for further debate and could be sent back to the Commons if the peers are not satisfied.
Mr Hughes was a former of headteacher of Tanyfron School, near Wrexham, and died, aged 57, in 2005.
Mrs Hughes, of Coed-y Glyn, Wrexham, said if they’d had to worry about the financial implications of trying to press for a claim without legal aid, they might not have bothered.
“I was very disappointed the bill went through in the Government vote on Monday,” she said. “But I did take heart that there were Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs who could not vote with the Government.
“It is now going back to the House of Lords and I would urge them not to pass this through, back what they backed, and send it back to the House of Commons where hopefully more will reject it.”
Environmental campaigners told a High Court judge today that an Olympic basketball training facility was being built on parkland filled with “lead and asbestos”.
They said the facility in Waltham Forest, north London, was being put up in an area “landfilled” after the Second World War and workers were disturbing “contaminated” earth.
Demonstrators raised concerns as Mr Justice Arnold – who has said he has tickets for an Olympic basketball game – renewed an order “restraining” them from engaging in “unlawful activity” at the site.
The judge granted the injunction on April 4 after lawyers representing the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) – a public body responsible for building Games venues – said protesters were stopping workers getting to the site at Leyton Marsh, which is part of a regional park.
He renewed it at a High Court hearing in London today after hearing arguments from the ODA and protesters.
The judge was a told that the ODA had licensed the site from park owners. Planners had given permission on the basis that the facility would be demolished and land restored to its previous condition after the Games.
He said he had to balance the ODA’s rights under that agreement and demonstrators’ rights to free speech and assembly.
The Supreme Court in its judgment ruled, “for the purposes of employer liability policies, the negligent exposure of an employee to asbestos during the policy period has a sufficient causal link with subsequently arising mesothelioma to trigger the insurer’s obligations to indemnify the employer.”
Neal Stone, director of policy and communications at the British Safety Council, said: “This is a very important judgment in favour of sensible health and safety and will be welcomed by thousands of workers exposed to asbestos in the course of their work, their employers and others committed to preventing the deadly consequences of work-related diseases.”
The Supreme Court in a judgment published on 28 March 2012 upheld appeals from Unite the union, employers and others concerning the liability of insurers to employers where their employees have contracted mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos.
One of the issues on which the appeal was made to the Supreme Court was when mesothelioma was “sustained” or “contracted” – when the employee was wrongfully exposed to asbestos or when the disease actually occurs in the employee. Trade unions argued that had it not been for the Supreme Court ruling many thousands of workers exposed to mesothelioma with fatal consequences would not be compensated for the loss they, or their families, had suffered.
Asbestos Awareness
A laboratory testing firm has been prosecuted after putting workers at its Tyneside premises at risk of exposure to asbestos.
An investigation was started into the activities of Exova (UK) Limited after a complaint about the company was submitted. The complaint suggested that the company had not dealt with damaged asbestos at its site at The Grubb Parsons Building on Shields Road, Newcastle.
The company had been advised to follow asbestos regulations and had failed to do so after the second recommendation.
The company’s own accredited asbestos testing branch carried out a survey of the premises on the 3rd of October Newcastle Magistrates’ Court Heard. The branch identified damaged asbestos in two separate areas of the site and the survey stated that the asbestos should be removed, repaired or sealed.
In February 2010 a further survey was completed, this survey also stated that the previously identified damaged asbestos was still there.
Andrew Woodhall, and HSE inspector, visited the site on 15 July 2010, he found the recommendations of the two earlier surveys had still not been implemented and employees were continuing to access and work in the area.
Due to employees working in the area where asbestos was present and exposure was likely, the HSE inspector instigated enforcement action.
Recent Comments