header-logo header-logo

Negligence fee victory for Mesothelioma sufferers

09 July 2015
Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Welcome court fee U-turn for mesothelioma cases

Mesothelioma sufferers will not be asked to spend their government pay-out on court fees if they bring a negligence claim, after Justice Secretary Michael Gove conceded defeat ahead of a judicial review.

Mesothelioma sufferers faced the prospect of paying up to £10,000 in court fees to bring a claim, after the government controversially hiked court fees for civil proceedings in March 2015. However, they can now apply for a fee remission without a statutory pay-out counting towards the “disposable capital” threshold.

Lawyers for the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK and mesothelioma sufferers Ian Doughty and Carole Sloper brought a legal challenge, arguing that mesothelioma sufferers, whose terminal lung condition is caused by exposure to asbestos, are typically of modest means—their illness makes them disabled within the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

As they will have received a lump sum award of about £15,000 under the Pneumoconiosis Etc Workers’ Compensation) Act, they will usually not qualify for the fee remissions scheme, which has a threshold of £16,000 in “disposable capital”. Their claim will be worth £150,000 to £300,000 so they would therefore need to pay up to £10,000 up front in order to bring a negligence claim.

Their lawyers argued that mesothelioma sufferers would be prevented from bringing a claim because they could not be expected to give up a large part of their disposable capital in the last months of their lives.

A judicial review hearing was scheduled for later this month. However, Gove agreed last week to exclude mesothelioma compensation awards from the definition of “disposable capital” and will now place an amending statutory instrument to that effect before Parliament.

Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Manchester firm strengthens Court of Protection expertise with partner hire

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Agricultural law team expands with senior director appointments

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
back-to-top-scroll