The parties disputed the effect of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) which regulated claims for compensation for respiratory diseases incurred by people working for the defendant as regards the circumstances for claimants with chronic bronchitis. The claimants said that they need only establish having had the disease whilst working at a mine. The DTI said they had additionally to show that the disease was caused by the employment.
Held: the overall object of the CHA was to compensate claimants for injury caused by negligent exposure to mining dust and fumes. To this end, the MAP was designed to identify the respiratory condition(s) from which the miner was suffering or had suffered. The documentaion ‘is, in my view, very strongly indicative of an intention on the part of the parties that, whereas cases of exacerbation of asthma and late onset CB should be evaluated for a causal link with the miner’s work, the same should not be so in cases of CB where the symptoms developed during a period when the miner was working underground.’
Judges:
Swift DBE J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1407 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd HL 1970
The parties disagreed as to the curial law of an arbitration agreement. The proper law of the building contract and the arbitration agreement was English but the reference was conducted in Scotland.
Held: Evidence of behaviour after a contract . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Coal Mining Contractor Defendants QBD 22-Jun-2004
. .
See Also – AB and others v Department of Trade and Industry S/A British Coal Corporation CA 21-Dec-2005
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and others CA 19-Oct-2006
A collective compensation agreement, which required affected persons to submit their claims, along with medical evidence, through authorised solicitors to be compensated on the basis of agreed damages formula, was introduced. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Another ComC 18-May-2007
. .
Cited by:
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) (Costs) QBD 27-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Rulings Appended) QBD 13-Aug-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation ComC 15-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.253714