www.start2claim.co.uk

Police forces in Wales have paid out more than £280,000 in personal injury claims to their own staff in the past three years.

There have been claims for injuries sustained by “defective office furniture”, an “item falling from cupboard”, and “injury in gym”.

Dyfed-Powys Police paid out more than £94,000, South Wales £84,000, North Wales £52,000 and Gwent £49,000.

The details were received by the BBC under Freedom of Information requests.

The figures reveal 93 compensation claims were put in by police staff working for the four Welsh forces since 2007.

The largest pay out was for £37,862 by South Wales Police in 2007/08. This included £16,000 in damages.

South Wales has seen the number of cases drop from 16 in 2007/08 to eight in 2009/10.

All four forces have been asked to comment but only Dyfed-Powys has so far responded.

A spokesperson for Dyfed-Powys Police said: “The figure of £94,000 is the total cost over the three-year period and includes damages and the legal costs of the claimants.

“There are no recognisable trends nor any underlaying issues in the number or nature of claims received.

“A robust approach is taken when investigating, handling and or defending each claim, dependant upon the individual circumstances and merits.

“This benefit can be reflected in the continued reduction in claims per annum.”

A Gwent Police spokeswoman said it would be “unwise” to spectulate on trends as the majority of the claims were ongoing.

“Also, because of the relevant limitation periods for claims to be received, the figures listed are possibly not the final figures. Numbers of claims are dynamic and those listed were simply a snapshot at the time of the FOI request.”

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12128611?print=true

Road accident compensation worth £20,000 is to be paid by a local authority in Scotland, after one of its vehicles collided with a coach.

An Aberdeenshire Council snowplough was involved in the incident, which saw a Stagecoach Bluebird bus drive into it two days before Christmas last year, the Press and Journal reports.

Regional government paying road accident compensation is a relatively common occurrence, with Croydon Council last year spending £615,537 to cover the cost of mishaps involving manholes and damages driving surfaces, among other things, the Croydon Advertiser reported.

In the past three years, road accident claims have led to Scottish local authorities releasing more than £10 million in compensation, with Aberdeenshire Council spending almost £500,000 on related costs over the period in question.

Current cold weather could also increase personal injury claims, as the Croydon publication revealed six of the ten largest reparation sums awarded last year were related to “ice, snow and frost”.

http://www.assist2claim.co.uk/compensation-claims/road-traffic-accident/

A grandmother was CS gassed on a night out by police.

Shocking footage of the incident was released for the first time yesterday and shows Debbie O’Reilly, 45, asking an officer why they are arresting a friend, who is being held in a headlock on the ground.

The grandmother-of-three approaches the officer but he shoves her out of the way. She then has CS gas sprayed into her face before being held for obstructing a police officer.

The hospital worker, from Dewsbury, West Yorks, said: “I’ve never felt pain like it. My eyes were on fire.”

She was awarded £7,000 in compensation by West Yorkshire Police following the incident in Batley, West Yorks, in August 2007. She said: “It was never about the money, it was about them admitting they were wrong.”

West Yorkshire Police said the incident was investigated “thoroughly” but the officer was not suspended or charged with any offence.

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/12/28/gran-sprayed-by-cop-with-cs-gas-awarded-7k-in-compensation-115875-22811796/#ixzz19ceA8P00

ACCIDENT-PRONE young drivers and a surge in fraudulent claims are key factors behind the steep increase in motor insurance premiums which threaten to drive some motorists off the road.

According to the benchmark AA British Insurance Premium Index, motorists faced a startling increase of 11.5 per cent in the third quarter, based on the cheapest three quotes collected in its survey.

In the year to September 30, the cost of annual comprehensive cover rose by 39.3 per cent to £792, the biggest annual rise ever recorded by the Index which began in 1994.

For third-party, fire and theft policies, which is the best that many younger, riskier drivers can get, a 54.6 per cent jump produced an average annual bill of £1,097.

Young drivers face the stiffest increases because they generate so many claims.

Over the past year, the average cost of cover has jumped by 51 per cent for 17 to 22-year-olds. Even after shopping around, men of this age can expect annual premiums of about £2,500, while women (less dangerous) pay £1,400.

AA Insurance director Simon Douglas said: “Statistics from the Department for Transport (2009) show that a third of men killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads are under 25.

“Car crashes are by far the biggest threat to life among young people – considerably more than drugs or knife crime, for instance.

“These shock statistics underline why premiums for young drivers are soaring.”

Middle-aged drivers (40-59) have seen a 30 per cent surge in premiums, perhaps because many parents extend their policies to cover children.

The pain for all motorists, said Mr Douglas, has been intensified by price comparison sites, which drove premiums so low that many companies lost money on car insurance.

“Five years ago, we warned that sharp premium inflation would be the result of this competition, but the recession is adding to the pain,” he said.

Today, insurers pay out £123 to settle claims for every £100 collected in premiums and the Government will push prices higher on January 1 by adding one per cent to insurance premium tax.

The AA thinks premium rises could continue next year, although the largest rises may already be factored in.

Meanwhile, few can predict when the bill for settling personal injury claims will level off as “no-win, no-fee” lawyers seek out accident victims to pursue their claims. One estimate suggests 30,000 fraudulent claims are paid out each year, adding an average £80 to the cost of each policy purchased.

Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), from an analysis of 50,000 low value personal injury claims, reveal an average compensation payout of £2,430 – plus legal fees of £2,100 a time.

A moneysupermarket.com report suggested in September that one motorist in every 20 aged under 35 has “staged”

an accident to make a fraudulent insurance claim.

AA spokesman Ian Crowder said: “Ultimately, honest motorists pay for this scam through rising premiums.

The fact is that it is very difficult to clinically disagree when claimants say they have whiplash injuries, and on low value claims insurers know it is cheaper to pay up than to fight the case in the courts.”

Drivers now find themselves under growing pressures. How can they keep car insurance costs under control?

Online price comparison sites are a vital weapon and in today’s highly-competitive market, drivers also need to convince providers that they are open to better offers.

Drivers can also save money by raising the excess (the limit of the bill they will pay themselves) on their policy.

So, what can be done to help young drivers?

The AA’s Simon Douglas said there must be a drive for higher quality driving standards.

Young drivers can also get cut-price insurance from car makers on new models.

For instance, Mini Financial Services has extended its offer of a year’s insurance from only £99 to buyers aged between 30 and 80 on new Mini Convertible and Clubman models registered by December 31. Younger drivers, aged between 21 and 24, pay £199.

Source www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

After nearly of year of deliberation, the Court of Appeal has delivered its verdict in the EL trigger litigation. Brian Goodwin dissects a complex ruling that seems to deliver only uncertainty for all parties.

The Court of Appeal’s long-awaited judgment in the employers’ liability trigger litigation was described by Lord Justice Rix, who delivered the leading judgment, as “an unfortunate conclusion”.

He could not have put it better. The market had hoped the ruling, 11 months in the making, would bring clarity and certainty to the question of which insurer â if any â should meet historical asbestos claims. That no less than seven parties were given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is testament to the fact it failed to meet expectations.

It is difficult, on reading the 160-page judgment, to readily discern the outcome as the three judges could scarcely agree on anything. The decision has produced as many permutations as there were parties to the litigation. In summary, the ‘Boltonites’ â the four run-off insurers that applied the public liability decision of Bolton v MMI to their EL policies, in which it was held that a mesothelioma victim sustains injury for the first time when the tumour develops â had some success.

The following principles emerge: where the operative verb in the trigger clause on an EL policy is ‘contract’ (a disease), the policy in force when the inhalation of asbestos fibres took place must respond. ‘Contract’ is thus effectively synonymous with ‘caused’. In contrast, if the verb is ‘sustain’ the relevant and responding policy is the one in place when the tumour starts to develop (although Lady Justice Smith dissented).

Important issues

The reasoning was confusing, as can be seen from an analysis of the three judges’ positions on a number of important issues. Lord Justice Rix thought the wording of the policies was sufficiently clear to preclude any interference to give effect to their commercial purpose. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton thought that purpose was fulfilled, in any event, by a literalist interpretation.

Lady Justice Smith, however, thought it was not necessary to resort to the commercial purpose because the wording should be interpreted in accordance with the parties’ understanding when the policies were entered into â namely that an injury was sustained on exposure.

When it came to the effect of the Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969, Lord Justice Rix held that policies which were incepted from 1972 would be deemed to be compliant with the Act and would respond as if the mesothelioma were caused during the currency of the policy.

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton considered the effect of the Act was limited, namely to bring ex-employees within its ambit but only if the mesothelioma was sustained during the currency of the policy. Lord Justice Rix disagreed that generally policies embracing claims by employees could be construed as including ex-employees, and Lady Justice Smith did not consider the Act relevant at all.

On considering the applicability of Bolton, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton considered himself bound â but Lady Justice Smith distinguished Bolton on the basis that it related to public liability policies only. Crucially, Lord Justice Rix also considered himself bound by Bolton.

Had this not been the case he would have preferred to hold that where a victim develops mesothelioma there is actionable injury from the date of inhalation, because then liability is created when an employer has materially contributed to the risk.

He acknowledged that his decision led to “an unfortunate conclusion” which would have been solved had he been permitted to arrive at his preferred solution. This would have done justice to the ‘sustained’ wording by giving effect to its commercial purpose.

A number of additional peripheral issues remain unresolved, for instance: when does the tumour start to develop â is it 10 years according to the Court of Appeal in Bolton or five years as held by Lord Justice Burton in the first instance EL trigger litigation? And could the decision affect other diseases where there is a long latency period between exposure and manifestation? Lord Justice Rix thought it could.

Lack of certainty

For the market, this lack of certainty is deeply troubling, and is likely to persist for a good while longer until matters are resolved by the Supreme Court. As the Court of Appeal was not prepared to give precedence to the commercial purpose of the policies â nor to long-established market practice â the effect now according to ‘sustained’ policies leaves many employers unindemnified and many claimants uncompensated.

Section three of the Compensation Act 2006 means insurers that issued policies on a ‘caused’ or ‘contracted’ basis, or who decided to adhere to established practice by desisting from applying Bolton to their EL policies, will now find themselves liable for a greater burden of mesothelioma claims.

The judgment legitimises a growing and substantial void as its interpretation of the ‘sustained’ wording means many claims will remain effectively uninsured. This is a particular hardship for individual claimants who have no solvent employer to sue.

Mr Justice Burton’s decision at first instance was lauded by the Association of British Insurers, which said it, “maintains continuity and certainty, and will ensure that all claimants are compensated”. The ABI continued: “Most insurers have always been, and remain committed to, paying compensation to mesothelioma claimants as quickly as possible. This judgment means equal and fair treatment for all mesothelioma claimants.”

Almost everything positive that had followed from the first instance decision has now been negated, and the market will have to contend with a further long period of uncertainty. It is to be hoped the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to resolve all outstanding anomalies and ambiguities by bringing long-overdue and much-needed clarity to the legal position and reaching a decision that will enable the aspirations of the ABI on this issue to be met.

On all sides â except for the four ‘Boltonite’ insurers â such a conclusion would be universally welcomed.

Brian Goodwin is a partner at national law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer and acted for Amec in this case

Original Article: Post

www.casefunds.co.uk

Well not really but the Court of Appeal (Ladele –v- London Borough of Islington) did decide that for a Council to threaten to dismiss a registrar for refusing on religious grounds to carry out civil partnership services was justified.

To put it another way religious discrimination ‘was justified by  the Council’s desire to provide its services in a non- discriminatory way’.  So discrimination on religious grounds is OK to avoid discrimination against same sex couples. Sounds like that’s gay laws trumping religious laws. Why isn’t it?

Because we need to decide whether the result would be reversed if the situation was reversed.  Consider a gay doctor who refused to treat a patient known for their viscerally anti gay religious views- would that doctor’s employer be justified in threatening dismissal? We will not know for sure until it happens but I think it is a safe bet that following Ladele that an employment  tribunal will decide that the employer has a duty to extend its services to all comers. That means not permitting its staff to make such choices.

And in other news… the government has recently announced that because of a fall in the RPI the maximum compensatory award which an employment  tribunal can make is reduced from £66200 to £65300 with effect from 1st February 2010

Employers have been advised by the Law Society to be wary of using information on websites to vet job candidates. But it cuts both ways.

Our advice to our clients is to be careful what they say about their employer and colleagues- particularly if they have a problem at work or if they have lost their job and are either making a claim or are hoping to reach an agreement. That general advice is especially important in electronic media such as Facebook or Twitter and it goes for e-mails too.

Many people use electronic media as a modern form of gossip and put as much thought into what they write as what they say (not much?). There are two obvious but important differences between what is written in cyberspace and what is said- firstly you cannot be sure who will read what you write, secondly what you write can be copied and kept to use against you later. It will be no use then to deny that you said anything or claim that you were misquoted and taken out of context.

One client put his case in serious jeopardy by comments he made on Facebook about his employer whilst making a discrimination claim.

Another client was dismissed for gross misconduct because of comments she made in an e-mail during her notice period. The e-mail was intended to be light hearted and amusing but the employer did not see it that way. They regarded the e-mail as a gross breach of the clients duty and marched her off the premises. That way the employer thought they could avoid making a redundancy payment and save a sizeable chunk of notice pay.

No matter how witty you are and how amusing your comments you can be sure your employer will not see the joke. Especially if it suits them not to. So it is best to say nothing if you do not want your employer to have the last laugh.

Lee James Forshaw, Director of assist2claim says,” There has been a notable increase in the amount of people seeking advise due to suspension at work because they have either posted comments on Face book whilst at work or have made innocent comments which out of context have resulted in miss understanding. The best advice we can give is whilst at work, leave Face book alone and do not comment about the people you work with or the place you work if you do not want to risk losing your job”.

Fixing huge holes left by this years big freeze will cost millions of pounds.

A man was left paralysed in a car crash has been awarded one of the highest payouts in the UK.

Lukasz Borowski, 27, from West Yorkshire, received a package worth £8.35million after being left wheelchair-bound after the accident.

Mr Borowski was a rear-seat passenger in a Peugeot 307 when it crashed into a ditch in November 2005.

He suffered damage to his spinal cord, a fractured spine and brain damage which left him with permanent loss of movement and sensation below his shoulders.

He also has problems with his memory, attention and concentration as a result of his injuries.

Sands, who was driving without insurance, was convicted of offences in connection with the crash in May 2006.

The settlement was awarded at Newcastle High Court yesterday.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which protects the injured victims of uninsured, negligent drivers agreed to the compensation payment.

Claims Companies are expecting a deluge of compensation claims from pedestrians who have slipped on ungritted surfaces.

Lee James Forshaw Director at Assist2claim, said: “They will start coming in over the next few days. People who have slipped, fallen over or been involved in a Road Accident are probably recovering at home or in hospital and the cold weather is hampering there recovery”.

“Where there should have been grit and there was not, it may be possible to make a claim for compensation, if this resulted in an injury.”

 City Councils are vulnerable to compensation claims after leaving ice on city centre pavements and roads for days without taking responsable measures.

He added: “With the forecasts they should have stockpiled enough grit to ensure the public’s safety. A lack of grit in pedestrian areas might give rise to an increase in claims.”