Entries by Sammy Nanneh

De minimis or material? – The survival of the false dichotomy in industrial disease cases – Carder v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWCA Civ 790

/in /by

Introduction We recently voiced questioned the use of the maxim ‘de minimis’ when proving causation in multi-exposure industrial disease claims (see here)[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][1]. It was suggested that in these types of claims the […]

Dust-Clouds and Dustbins: Should There Be a Regularity Requirement for Dust Exposure When Defining ‘Substantial’ Under Section 63 (1) Factories Act 1961?

/in /by

This article originally appeared on the PI Brief Update website In cases where an employee is exposed to asbestos, a claim may be brought under the common law as well as pursuant to duties owed by the employer under various regulations and legislation. One example of such legislation is s.63 (1) Factories Act 1961, which […]

WARNE v VINTERS-ARMSTRONGS [2016] EWHC 1971 (QB); AN EXPOSURE OF SUBSTANCE

/in /by

Synopsis The Claimant employee was exposed to asbestos dust during the course of his employment over 50 years ago. This judgement sheds light on the importance of selecting the correct expert and the need for sound methodology to analyse the possible extent of asbestos exposure when proving causation in industrial disease cases. The Claimant was […]