Home page, skip to main content,Help

Client quote

This premium practice includes a renowned defendant personal injury team. Clients commented: ‘this outfit provides everything we could possibly want in a law firm’.”

Chambers and Partners

Occupational Disease

Kennedys' specialist Occupational Disease Unit is recognised for its know-how and skill in defending a wide range of occupational disease claims, particularly long-tail diseases and the challenges arising from latency issues. Two of our partners were involved in the successful defence of the widely reported "EL Policy Trigger Litigation".

The work related medical conditions we regularly encounter are:

  • Asbestos related conditions
  • Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
  • Industrial deafness
  • Work Related Upper Limb Disorders

Other work related medical conditions we deal with include:

  • Dermatitis
  • Laryngeal, bladder and other work related cancers
  • Legionnaire's disease
  • Respiratory diseases including asthma, silicosis, COPD, COAD and CO Poisoning
  • Stress

Examples of the work in which members of our team
have been involved in:

  • The EL Policy Trigger Litigation in which Bolton MBC v MMI and Another was distinguished and the court held that in the case of a latent injury, an EL policy is triggered by the date of the negligent act complained of, not the date of injury.
  • Court of Appeal negligence claim where the risk of harm to local children from asbestos dust, which was allowed to escape from the factory decades earlier, was foreseeable since dust levels outside the factory door effectively replicated the poor conditions inside the factory. Margereson and Hancock v J.W. Roberts Limited.
  • The Court of Appeal held that negligent exposure to asbestos in a foreign country is only actionable in England if it is actionable (a) as a tort according to English law and (b) in the foreign jurisdiction where such exposure occurred. Durham v T & N Plc.
  • A Court of Appeal decision in a pleural thickening claim where the Claimant's business was effectively a two man partnership. However, the partners introduced their wives as partners, purely for
    tax reasons. The wives played no role in the business, but the profits of the partnership were divided in four equal shares. Held, the Claimant's lost earnings capacity was in reality 50% of the partnership profits. Ward v Newals Insulation Co. Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key contacts

Kieron West
Keiron West
Chelmsford
Email Keiron


Mark Burton
London
Email Mark

Philippa Craven
Philippa Craven
Birmingham
Email Philippa


Paul McGrath
Manchester
Email Paul

Lorraine Burns
Lorraine Burns
Taunton
Email Lorraine

Publications and articles

Abraham v G Ireson & Son (Properties) Ltd and another 31.7.09 -Read more.

Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 24.7.09 -Read more.

Judgment disarms 'trigger-happy' insurers - Read more.

Government consultations

Kennedys' response to consultation on Pleural Plaques - Read more