Personal Injuries Claims News

European Physical Agents (Noise) Directive

2007-07-25T00:14:00.000-07:00

These Regulations are about protecting workers from exposure to noise, which is still a problem in many industries. It was estimated that these Regulations will extend protection to around one million new workers, in addition to the same number protected under current law.

The main changes from the existing Regulations are the reduction by 5 decibals (dB) of the exposure levels at which action has to be taken. The new exposure levels will be 80dB and 85dB with a limit of 87dB on personal noise exposure. This will mean that some employers who already take action to control noise may have to do more, according to the HSE (Health & Safety Commission). For most employers the new Regulations came into force in February 2006.

The HSE says that the limitation on personal noise exposure now allows hearing protection to be taken into account. In addition, where noise exposure varies from day to day, it can be averaged over a week rather than over 8 hours. And the original requirement for health surveillance at 80dB has been qualified so that it only applies where there is a risk to health.

No- Win No Fee Frank is Champ of the Underdog

2007-07-23T00:51:00.000-07:00

Who do you prefer in the morning? The energetic ranting of Radio 1’s Chris Moyles or the more sedate Irish lilt of Radio 2’s Terry Wogan?

The dilemma can provoke heated debate, particularly across the generation divide. Whatever your preference, not many people would be willing to come to blows over it. Yet that’s exactly what happened in a council building in Aberdeen, when two employees literally butted heads over the issue in 2004.

When the dust settled both employees were sacked but one eventually got his job back appeal. Considering the returning employee (who incidentally, favoured Wogan) was the perpetrator of the head butt, it says a lot for the man who successfully fought his corner, Aberdeen solicitor Frank Lefevre. Yet its just one of the many seemingly lost causes Frank has taken on and won.

High-profile

Apart from a brief stint as an advertising copywriter, he has been a solicitor for nearly 50 years, specialising in court work. In those years he’s fought a number of high profile cases including acting for survivors and families of victims of the Piper Alpha and Lockerbie disaster and those affected by the Braer oil spill off Shetland. But more than the landmark cases the 72-year-old won, he’ll perhaps be best remembered for what he’s done for the legal profession. In 1988 he became the first lawyer in Britain to take on cases on a “no-win, no-fee” basis when he set up Aberdeen-based Quantum Claims, which now has five offices across Scotland. It was a move that sent shockwaves through the stuffy world of the legal profession. “When I started doing them it was big news, almost a revolutionary idea,” says Frank. “I was involved in a civil case here that meant having to work with an American legal firm. That company took cases on no-win, no-fee and I thought it might just work here.

“I was frustrated with the length of time it took things to come to fruition in the legal system here. I hoped this might inject a bit of urgency but it was a big risk.” A chance meeting at a wedding, however, ensured the fledgling venture had all the publicity it needed. “I was introduced to the editor of The Times and my business was mentioned to him. Within days a story about it was on the front page.” In no-win, no-fee cases a fee is only payable if there’s a favourable result. If the client wins or settles, the solicitor’s fees are usually based on a percentage of the award. Frank goes on, “The public’s initial reaction was great and I was inundated with calls from people eager to pursue civil cases, but a lot of them were not cases that could be taken forward.

“In the first few months I’d have people who were 30 telling me that when they were three their granny dropped them on their head so could I sue her for them. “Of course I couldn’t but I’d always write them a long letter back telling them exactly why I couldn’t take on the case.

“It would take me an age but I always thought that if they ever did have a legitimate reason to contact a solicitor they’d automatically think of me.”

Suspicion

The legal profession viewed Frank’s venture with suspicion and he was soon embroiled in a feud with the Law Society of Scotland. They issued a simple ultimatum – drop no-win, no-fee or they’d revoke his right to practice law. When he refused to budge the Law Society took him to court and the case rumbled on for two years – with Frank emerging victorious. But Quantum Claims’ business model did open the floodgates for many opportunists. As many companies try to settle cases before they reach court with potentially large settlements, many soon saw neon pound signs. “There were plenty of opportunistic companies that tried to cash in and many of them have since gone out of business,” says Frank. “I think the fact we were the first company doing it and are still going speaks volume of our professionalism.

“I’m often called things like an ambulance-chaser but that’s par for the course. My main priority was always winning the respect of the public. After that the respect of my peers will follow.

“It’s amazing how perceptions change over the years. Long after the dust settled on my battle with the Law Society I was appointed to their council.”

Quantum Claims has handled around 50 000 enquiries and made settlement of around £50 million, including 16 different claims for the Piper Alpha disaster netting claimants almost £2 million. Frank’s never been busier and any talk of retirement is summarily dismissed.

In fact, he’s now branching out into songwriting and charity work. Frank has written a dozen songs he hopes famous Scots will record for a CD to raise cash for his soon-to-be set up kids charity Quines And Loons – Kids Wherever.
“We’re at an early stage but we hope to have it finished soon with a few well-known Scots and some English artistes making appearances too.”

Quines And Loons is planned as an umbrella charity, with each performer picking a children’s charity to share a slice of the profits. Frank’s own children play a big part in the law business. Three of his and wife Hazel’s children work with Quantum Claims. So Paul is a director and both daughters, Tracy and Julie, work there. Julie’s partner, John, is also a director. And last, but by no means least, is Managing Director, George Clark, who Frank says is very much a part of this family business. The Lefevres also have three grandchildren. Professionally, Frank was reinvigorated by a House of Lords ruling last December in the case of an offshore scaffolder who, getting out of his bunk bed, slipped on the ladder and fell, badly injuring his back. H was awarded a “substantial six-figure sum” yet at time the case seemed a lost cause. A civil court and the Court of Session had rejected the claim so it headed to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. “It’s probably the biggest case I’ve ever won,” Frank proudly admits. “I’ve been to the Lords three times before and lost every time.”

Foolproof

“We’d already paid more than £100,000 in legal costs. If we’d lost in the Lords we’d have been looking at a deficit of around £300,000.” Given the Quantum Claims is saddled with the costs if they lose, you’d think Frank would have some secret, foolproof selection process for picking cases. But you would be wrong. “Some companies only take on cases after they calculate exactly what percentage chance they have of winning but that’s not me.”

“It’s more a gut feeling. If you have a sporting chance I’ll take the case.”
And with a proven heavyweight hitter like Frank in your corner a sporting chance may be all you need.

Personal Injuries or Death — Measure of Damages

2007-07-19T02:51:00.000-07:00

D, aged 23 at the time of the accident on 27 May 1997, sought damages for serious multiple injuries sustained when his motorcycle collided with an articulated lorry driven by W which was straddling both sides of a carriageway as W was performing a right turn manoeuvre into a minor side road. W blamed D for the accident, maintaining that the road ahead was clear when he began to turn right and that D was driving at a speed at which he could not stop safely within his range of vision. D's motorcycle was a 600 cc fitted with a "performance" exhaust which made it more noisy than normal. D had no recollection of events on the day of the accident, but said that his normal speed on the road was 60 mph.

Decision: granting decree, that D had proved W had performed his right hand turn manoeuvre when it was not clear or safe for him to do so. D was not a reliable source of evidence as to how the accident occurred, but the evidence of F, who, at the time of the accident, was standing at her front gate which directly faced the road, chatting to C, that W drove his lorry across the path of D’s oncoming motorcycle was unshakable, and the fact she did not think the speed of the motorcycle was excessive was not challenged in cross examination. W had failed to prove excessive speed on D's part and while he may have exceeded 60 mph when overtaking the cars on the straight stretch of road before the gradual left hand bend leading to the locus of the accident, W had failed to prove such speed was excessive or in any way inappropriate. Further, C's assessment of D's speed was based largely on the noise of the motorcycle which an unreliable indicator was given the performance exhaust system. In any event, W had further failed to prove a causal connection between D's speed and either the occurrence of the collision or the severity of his injuries. Agreed damages of inter alia £80,000 for solatium; £80,000 for past wage loss (both awards with interest to the date of decree); £400,000 for future wage loss; £35,000 for pension loss; and £90,000 for past and future services, with interest to me date of decree where relevant, were awarded.

Employers' liability – and their duty to keep floors and passages free

2007-07-17T02:09:00.000-07:00

After slipping on coolant fluid, M sought damages of £4,500 from his employer L, a bus company, in respect of a minor hand and wrist injury sustained at work. M, a new employee, who was an experienced mechanic bul had not previously worked with buses, slipped and fell on coolant fluid which had been spilled on a board laid across a pit. M submitted that (1) the accident occurred when he was working alone and unsupervised on 14 April 2002; (2) the coolant was spilled by the previous fitter, who had left insufficient drainage receptacles to catch the fluid when he disconnected a hose from a bus s coolant system; (3) L had breached regs 12(3), 5(1) and 13(1) of ihe 1992 Regulations. L submitted that (1) the accident had occurred earlier than M claimed: M's GP had recorded it together with another accident but had entered only 11 April in his records; (2) the coolant was spilled by M,who failed to use drainage receptacles to catch it; (3) L had done all that could be reasonably expected, by providing receptacles, absorbent granules and cleaning equipment for the inevitable spillages, entrusting the work to an apparently experienced mechanic and having a system whereby at weekends, fillers cleaned up spillages themselves; (4) given M's sole fault, L could not be found liable in damages; and (5) M's contributory negligence should he addressed ai a high degree, possibly 100 percent.

Decision: Granting decree in M’s favour for the sum of £1,125 that (1) the accident occurred on 14 April 2002. L had founded solely on the appearance of the GP's records, but the GP was not led as a witness at the proof and the only relevant averment in the joint minute was that the records were what they bore to be. Accordingly, the records themselves were not admissible evidence of the accuracy of their contents where the joint minute was silent on the matter, Lenaghan v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, 1994 SLT 165, followed. (2) On the balance of probabilities, M had spilled the coolant and at the material time there was no receptacle in place lo catches it as it emerged after the disconnection of the hose. (3) A breach of reg 12(3) had arisen: L's arrangements for such work were less than satisfactory and they had failed to convince the court that the offending spillage and the resulting accident could not reasonably practicably have been avoided; and subject to contributory negligence, L were liable in damages lo M for the accident which he sustained.

Observed, that had it been necessary to consider regs 5(1) and 13(1) neither would have been held to have been breached. (4) In the whole circumstances M had to bear the major share of responsibility for what had happened and contributory negligence should be, assessed at 75 per cent.

Employers' liability - Manual handling operations

A process worker - H, a process worker (aged 47 at proof), raised an action of damages against G, her employer, for personal injuries, namely an aggravation of carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist, which she claimed was caused by the trussing of chicken carcasses. The action proceeded lo proof, at which it was established that this process consisted of lifting the carcass from a hook, placing it on a workbench, tying the wings and legs with trussing siring, and placing the carcass onto a conveyor belt. H developed carpal tunnel syndrome in her right hand in 1994 and visited her doctor before March 2001 when she noticed similar symptoms in her left hand. H had an operation on her left hand in March 2001 and was off work for around 16 weeks, during which lime she required help from her family in carrying out personal and household tasks for around seven weeks. H argued that the entire operation of trussing was a single manual handling operation as it involved one relatively short movement, thus invoking the 1992 Regulations. G argued that the process in which H was involved was not a manual handling operation, and that in any event she had failed to prove that the operation had caused an exacerbation of her symptoms.

Decision: Dismissing the action, that (1) on the evidence heard, there was a sufficient causal link between H's work on the trussing line and the exacerbation of her symptoms. (2) When M’s services claim was a small part, his injuries were set forth as were the various tasks which he could not now do, three women were identified as his helpers at various times and a jury would be able to apportion any award among them.

Limitation of Actions

2007-07-11T00:29:00.000-07:00

This was a court action raised after expiry of limitation period -Court power to override time limit - [Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c 52), s 19A] – Tamburrini (T), a serving soldier between June 1995 and December 2003, raised an action of damages against A, the Advocate General for Scotland as representing the Ministry of Defence, in respect of (a) an injury sustained to his hand and (b) hearing loss allegedly from his exposure to excessive noise levels as a result of live firing exercises. Ts action in respect of his hand injury was proceeding to proof in January 2007 and his action in respect of hearing loss came to a preliminary proof on the question of time bar. It was agreed that the triennium period in respect of the deafness action expired on 18 October 2005 in terms of s 17 of the 1973 Act, and T moved the court to exercise its discretion in terms of s 19A. A submitted that they would suffer prejudice where: they would lose the statutory right to Ts claim being time barred; while there would still require to be a proof between the parties in respect of Ts hand injury, the inclusion of the deafness action would render it both more complex and expensive; the deafness action was based on the failure to have a safe system of hearing protection, monitoring and assessment of risk and while preliminary work had been done, further investigation would be required; and in any event, T had an alternative remedy in that he had a reasonable prospect of success in an action against his solicitors, who had failed to return the summons for calling with the result that the instance fell.

Decision: Granting the motion, that the court's discretion should be exercised under s 19 A and T should be allowed to bring the action notwithstanding that it was time barred under s 17 given that there was to be, in early course, a diet of proof between the parties on the hand injury action and there was a likelihood that some evidence in relation to the issue of deafness would be included in that proof, along with the considerations that this could not be said to be a stale case, the Ministry of Defence were well aware of the allegations and had prepared defences, and there was no significant practical prejudice to A, all of which tended to tip the balance in favour of exercising discretion in Ts favour.

Quantum Claims were subsequently able to settle the case on behalf of the client, by means on negotiation.

£3.625mn Damages for Batched Brain Operation

2007-06-27T04:34:00.000-07:00

A woman who was left severely brain damaged and wheelchair-bound after a neuro-surgeon attempted to remove a brain cyst with a pair of medical tweezers expected to receive £3.625mn in damages.

The 49-year-old former care home worker was admitted to the neurosurgery unit after a CT scan revealed she had a benign colloid cyst on the brain. According to her lawyer, the surgeon not only accessed the cyst "using the wrong surgical approach but attempted to biopsy the cyst by tugging at it with rongeurs (medical tweezers). In fact the cyst was attached to a vein and as a result caused a large brain hemorrhage."

As a result of the surgical errors, she is now completely paralyzed and her left side, has severe memory loss, mental impairment, is partially blind and has no sense of smell. After initial reluctance to admit any negligence, the hospital admitted liability after independent medical experts Confirmed that her injuries arose because of the way her brain operation was carried out.

The settlement of £3.625 million consists of a lump sum of £1.325 million and a £120,000 annual payment guaranteed for life.

HSE Report into the Cost of Occupational Asthma

2007-06-25T04:05:00.000-07:00

The Health and Safety Executive has published a report into the cost of occupational asthma in Great Britain. The HSE commissioned Metroeconomica Limited, 'the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), and the University of Aberdeen to develop detailed estimates of the cost of occupational asthma in Great Britain.

The report was commissioned in order to help to raise awareness among employers, workers, and policy-makers as to the potential gains to be realized from adopting measures to reduce the incidence of occupational asthma. In 2000 the Health and Safety Commission (WSC) published a long-term {10-year) occupational health strategy for Great Britain, setting an ambitious target for occupational asthma of a reduction of 30% in newly incident easts by 2010.

The report found:

The 'average' worker suffering from occupational asthma is estimated to lose between 3, 5 and just over 4.5 work days per year. A worker with milder or mote severe occupational asthma is estimated to lose close to two and 10 work days per year respectively.

The total number of newly reported cases of occupa¬tional asthma in Great Britain in 2003 was 631, of which 442 were male workers and 189 were female workers.

The total lifetime costs to society of these new cases of occupational asthma are estimated to range from about £3.4mn to £4.8mn per year over the lifetime of the disease. If comparable numbers of new cases were diagnosed in 2004, 2005, 2006 and so on, this would give rise to additional streams of lifetime costs of similar magnitude.

Allowing for the fact that the number of new cases of occupational asthma diagnosed in 2003 is under-reported by up to one-third,the total lifetime costs to society could be as high as ,£95.6mn to £133.5mn.

The estimated total lifetime costs to society are made up of costs incurred by the individual, employers and the state ('taxpayers'). The largest cost burden falls on the individual worker (who incurs about 49% of total costs),followed very closely by- taxpayers (who incur about47% of total costs).In contrast, employers of workers diagnosed with occupational asthma in 2003 only incur about 4% of total costs.

There appears,therefore, to be little incentive for employers to reduce the incidence of new cases of occupational asthma in Great Britain, despite the fact that significant benefits would accrue to the rest .of society: benefits to the state and employees could be as high as £69,7mn and £96.3mn over the lifetime of those workers diagnosed with the disease.

Employment Law

2007-06-22T00:17:00.000-07:00

Quantum Claims have a dedicated Employment Team . Two of our Team, Frank Lefevre and Christine McCrossan are accredited by the Law Society of Scotland as Specialists in Employment Law.

Cost

Funding an employment claim can be very expensive, a very daunting prospect for an employee who has just lost or possibly going to lose his or her income.

As Quantum Claims operate on a "no win no fee" basis there are no cost issues to consider and should a claim not succeed the employee is no worse off financially.

Quantum Claims cover every type of employment dispute. The following types of claim are heard by Employment Tribunals. Professional and competent representation will greatly increase the prospects of bringing any claim to a successful conclusion.

Unfair Dismissal

When an employee is dismissed he/she may have a right to pursue their former employer for a claim for unfair dismissal.

At Quantum Claims we carefully assess each individual claim. Unlike some Trade Unions we do not reject claims on the basis of an assessment that they have less than a 50% chance of success. Each case is considered on its own merits. We will

not take poor cases to Tribunal but we are not afraid to fight hard cases in this ever developing area of law.

Unfair Selection for Redundancy

Redundancy situations are commonplace in today's working environment. However the employer has a duty to embark on a fair process when deciding as to who they select for redundancy.

On many occasions the procedures adopted by employers are flawed and give rise to a claim for unfair selection for redundancy.

We have many years of experience in dealing with this type of claim and have a high success rate.

Unfair Constructive Dismissal

On occasion an employee will leave his/her employment as a result of the behaviour of their employer. If the employer has breached the terms and conditions of the employee's Contract of Employment then the employee may have a claim for Constructive Dismissal.
These types of claims are often very difficult to progress successfully but our skilled Team deal with them on a regular basis with a high rate of success.

Discrimination Cases

Perhaps the most significant development in Employment Law has been the continued evolvement of Discrimination Law. Whilst Sexual and Racial

Discrimination legislation has been in place for several decades there is now protection for employees who are discriminated against on the grounds of Disability, Sexual and Religious orientation.

Any claim involving discrimination requires specialist advice which is what we at Quantum Claims are able to provide.

Equal Pay

The general principle of equal pay is easy to state. Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work and for work of equal value. Put another way there should be no sex discrimination in relation to pay.

This is another area of Employment Law where specialist representation can assist in bringing a claim to a successful conclusion.

Breach of Contract

An employer who withholds wages, fails to pay the minimum wage, does not pay an employee the correct amount of notice pay on termination of employment, or does not grant an employee four weeks annual leave may be in Breach of Contract. There are remedies available to employees where Contracts of Employment are breached by the employer.
Employment Tribunals can hear claims up to a value of £25,000. We deal with these types of cases on a daily basis and are able to provide sound advice for any employee who may have a claim.

Disability Discrimination Case

2007-06-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

An employment tribunal has ruled that an employer directly discriminated against the blind employee when they dismissed her without investigating whether any reasonable adjustments could be made.

The woman was employed as a receptionist/nursing assistant at a veternary centre. Following a stroke, she lost the sight in both eyes.When the centre was informed of this, they dismissed her as they believed that she would no longer be able to carry out her duties, particularly those of nursing assistant. They did not meet with her or consider whether any adjustments could be made before taking the decision to dismiss her. She brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

Sickness not Equated with Disability

2007-06-16T05:57:00.000-07:00

A person dismissed purely on account of sickness was not discriminated against on grounds of “disability” in the meaning of, and therefore did not come within the scope of, Council Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities so held on a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid, Spain.

The Court said that “disability” in the context of the Directive referred to a limitation resulting from physical, mental or psychological impairments which hindered participation in professional life over a long period of time.

“Sickness” could not be equated with “disability”.A person who had been dismissed solely on account of sickness therefore did not fall within the Directive.

One in 10 Employees Injured at Work

2007-06-14T05:40:00.000-07:00

One in 10 people has sustained an injury in the work place in the past five years, according to new research from AXA Insurance. AXA’s Study revealed that whilst employee injuries ( are most likely to be caused by work related accidents (81%), for example, using machinery and tripping over, 8% of work related injuries sustained by employees resulted from physical assault either by a customer or collegue.

Suprisingly, the professional services industry, which includes lawyers , consultants and accountants, experienced the highest level of physical assault with as many as 15% of employees working in the sector being assaulted by a customer.

The study also revealed that employees who work for large companies (250 employees or more) are almost twice as likely to suffer an injury whilst working compared to those employed by small and medium sized companies (10 – 250 employees).

Like SME’s, smaller businesses (one to nine employees) also had a better record for workplace accidents and injuries when compared with large companies – 17% of small business employees have suffered injuries at work compared to 47% in large companies.

Workplace accidents account for the most injuries at work and one third of all injuries are the result of falls or trips. Strains and sprains are the most common result of an accident – 34% of workplace accidents resulted in these types of injuries.

The AXA study also found that employees aged over 50 are most likely to fall whilst doing their job (47%) compared to 28% of 18 – 29 year olds, and nearly one in 10 of those injured UK employees (9%) complain of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) or other injuries caused by the working environment.

Most common accidents and resulting injuries sustained in the workplace:
How accident / injury happened	Percentage of people who have suffered this in the past five years
Fall, slip or trip	33%
Kitchen accident	19%
Lifting	11%
Inappropriate working environment	9%
Industrial machinery accident	6%
Vehicle road accident	4%
Contact with dangerous substances	3%
Most common injuries sustained	Percentage of people who have suffered this in the past five years
Musculoskeletal disorder (back pain, strains and sprained muscles)	34%
Cut(s)	28%
Burn(s)	21%
Broken bone(s)	11%
Loss of mobility	6%
Headaches	4%
Knocked unconscious	3%

Quantum Claims Client Testimonial

2007-06-11T23:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Sirs,

I had no particular desire to gain financially from my fall but when the party involved gave no assistance indeed no sorry words, nor phone call next day when I returned from hospital, as to my well-being, my only option for redress was a letter to Quantum Claims. There my wish was granted as not only did I get my grievance aired to my satisfaction in the courtroom but also the £3000 came in handy for the electric bed and other help aids I now have.

Thank you Quantum Claims.

Philip G. Taylor

Summary of the Key Points on Stress at Work Cases (Taken from Hale LJ’s judgement)

2007-06-08T00:33:00.000-07:00

(1) There are no special control mechanisms applying to claims for psychiatric (or physical) illness or injury arising from the stress of doing the work the employee is required to do.The ordinary principles of employer's liability apply.

(2) The threshold question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable. This has two components:

(a) an injury to health (as distinct from occupational stress) which

(b) is attributable to stress at work (as distinct from other factors).

(3) Foreseeability depends upon what the employer knows (or ought reasonably to know) about the individual employee. Because of the nature of mental disorder, it is harder to foresee than physical injury, but may be easier to foresee in a known Individual than in the population at large. An employer is-usually entitled to assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job unless he knows of some particular problem or vulnerability.

(4) The test Is the same whatever the employment: there are no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health.

(5) Factors likely to be relevant in answering the threshold question include:

(a) The nature and extent of the work done by the employee. Is the Workload much greater than is normal far the particular job? Is the work particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding for this employee? Are the demands being made of this employee unreasonable when compared with the demands made of others in the same or comparable jobs, or are there signs that others doing this fob are suffering harmful levels of stress? Is there an abnormal level of sickness or absenteeism in the same job at the same department?

(b) Signs from the employee of Impending harm to health. Has he a particular problem or vulnerability? Has he already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work? Have there recently been frequent or prolonged absences which are uncharacteristic of him? Is there reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work, for example, because of complaints or warnings from him or others?

(6) The employer is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value, unless he has goad reason to think to the contrary. He does not generally have to make searching enquiries of the employee or seek permission to make further enquiries of his medical advisers.

(7) To trigger a duty to take steps, the indications of impending harm to health arising from stress at work must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it.

(8) The employer is only in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the casts and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications far running the risk.

(9) The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable; these include the Interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.

(10) An employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps which are likely to do some good; the court is likely to need expert evidence on this.

The Court of Appeal on Employee Psychiatric Injury

2007-06-06T00:16:00.000-07:00

The Court of Appeal stated that an employer will escape liability for an employee's psychiatric injury unless it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee in question would suffer such an injury as a result of occupational stress. The Court proceeded to consider the circumstances in which ir can be said to be reasonably foreseeable that a psychiatric injury will occur. They stated that there are no occupations so intrinsically stressful that psychiatric injury is always reasonably foreseeable.

In the Court's view, tie answer to the question of foreseeability will depend upon tiie relationship between the particular demands of a job and the particular characteristics of the employee concerned.With this in mind, the Court listed a number of factors chat were relevant to the issue of foreseeability. These factors were split into two groups, one relating to the demands of the job and the other to the employee's circumstances.

The first group included the following considerations:

The nature and extent of die work done by the employee
Whether the employee's workload is much greater than is normal for the kind of job which he or she performs
Whether the employee's work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding
Whether demands being made of the employee are unreasonable when compared with the demands made of others in comparable jobs
Whether there are signs that others doing the same job are suffering harmful levels of stress
Whether there is an abnormal level of sickness or absenteeism in the employee's job or department.
The second group of factors reflected the Court's view that the most important question centres on what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the circumstances of the individual employee in question. The Court stated that the following factors might be relevant:
Whether there are signs from the employee of impending harm to health
Whether the employee has a particular problem or vulnerability
Whether the employee has already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work
Whether there have recendy been frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic of the employee and whether there is reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work.

The Court went on to state that an employer will be entided to assume that an employee can cope with the normal pressures of a job unless he knows of something specific about the job or the individual concerned that should make him consider the issue of psychiatric injury. As for the question of how much an employer is expected to know about an individual employee's circumstances, the Court stated that an employer is not obliged to make intrusive enquiries and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value.

In conclusion, the Court stated that a duty to take steps only arises where signs that an employee might suffer psychiatric illness from stress at work are plain enough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.

Duty to take steps

The Court then moved on to warn against the assumption that an employer will always be in breach of his duty of care if he fails to take steps to prevent an employee from suffering a reasonably foreseeable psychiatric illness. A number of factors must be considered before one can conclude that an employer is under a duty to take steps. These include the magnitude of the risk of psychiatric injury occurring; the gravity of the injury which may be suffered; the cost and practicability of preventing such injury -particularly in view of the employer's resources; the effect that any steps taken would have upon the employer's other employees; and whether such steps would actually prevent the injury occurring.

The Court had two further comments about the steps that an employer might be expected to take. First, they stated that an employer who offers a confidential advice service, including counselling or treatment, is unlikely to be found in breach of duty except where he has been placing unreasonable demands on an individual where the risk of psychiatric injury was clear. Secondly, they stated that one step an employer is not obliged to take, even where that step would be the only reasonable and effective one available, is to demote or dismiss an employee in order to remove him or her from a stressful situation. In the Court's view, an employer will not be in breach of duty simply by allowing a willing employee to continue in his or her job.

Causation and damages

Even where an employer has breached the duty of care owed to an employee, and where the employee has suffered psychiatric injury, the employee in question still has to demonstrate that the breach of duty has caused or materially contributed to his or her injury.

The Court went on to note that, unless an employee's psychiatric injury is indivisible from the employer's breach of duty, where a psychiatric injury has more than one cause, the employer should only pay for the proportion of the injury attributable to his breach. The Court further noted that an assessment of damages will take account of any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability which, the employee had, and the possibility that the employee would have suffered a psychiatric injury notwithstanding the employer's breach of duty.

The Court summarised their guidance, listing 16 key principles, which we reproduce in the box on page 5. Then, having set out the relevant law, the Court of Appeal moved on to apply that law to the facts of the four cases in question.

The Hatton case

H taught in a comprehensive school in Liverpool from 1980 until 1995. In 1989, following the break-up of hex marriage, she took two months off work with depression, hi January 1994 she took a further month off after she was attacked in the street. In April 1994 she was sent home for the rest of the term when her son was admitted to hospital. She saw a stress counsellor in August 1994 but did not mention this to her employer. In October 1995 she was signed off work with depression, never to return. At no stage had H complained to her employer about her workload, which in any event, had been no more burdensome than that of any other teacher in a similar school. The county court found H's employer liable in respect of H's psychiatric injury and awarded H damages of over £90,000.

The Court of Appeal overturned the county court's decision. They held that H's employer had not been under a duty to take steps to prevent H suffering a psychiatric injury because it had not been reasonable foreseeable, by reference to H's workload and pattern of absence, that she was likely to suffer such an injury as a result of occupational stress. In the Court’s view H's employer could not have been expected to examine further the causes of H's absences when H attributed them to problems at home. The Court added that, in any event, the county court judge had not identified a specific breach of duty which had contributed to H's psychiatric illness.

Employers Liability for Stress Injury at Work

2007-06-04T06:04:00.000-07:00

Over recent years Quantum has received an ever increasing number of enquiries regarding stress injury and/or harassment at work , often relating to unrealistic work expectations and excessive working hours.

Although it is an area which often crosses over into employment law, and in particular constructive dismissal, in a number of instances civil cases have been pursued and more recently have achieved some success by way of Court Judgment.

An employer is under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that his employees do not suffer injuries at work. Where an employer breaches this duty, and an employee suffers a reasonably foreseeable injury as a result, the employer will be liable to the employee. In 2002 a number of cases proceeded through the Court of Appeal in England, which by way of Judgment produced guidelines which were able to be referred to when considering the merits of a potential claim.(Sutherland)

The Court focused on the key issues of when a psychiatric injury can be said to have been reasonably foreseeable; what an employer can reasonably be expected to do to prevent such an injury; and the difficulty of ascertaining the cause of such an injury.

The Appeal Court also helpfully provided a summary of the key points to be considered regarding stress at work cases, which we would detail as follows.

The principals or guidance as detailed above were revisited following the Court of Appeal Judgments in the cases Hartman –v- South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust ET SEQ, heard in 2005.

Generally speaking, the principles/guidelines as detailed above were followed, although some concern was expressed regarding the fact that the said guidelines are not intended to cover all the facts of all cases which arise, and that the main difficulties with such cases were with regard to establishing “foreseeability” from an employer’s perspective.

The existence of foreseeability must depend upon what an employer knew, or what reasonably he should have known, about his individual employee. Thereafter the employer can only reasonably be expected to take measures which are likely to do some good, and expert evidence is required in this regard.

Following the “Hatton” cases it was expressly submitted and recognised that claims for psychiatric injury arising from stress at work could be the “next growth area”. Following the “Hartman” cases despite the difficulties and further explanation of the test to be applied, there was the potential that this could still be a possibility.

More recently, as stated initially in this article, there have been further Court Decisions which have found in favour of the pursuer.

In Tracey Ann Dow –v- Intel Corporation, the employer appealed against the High Court’s finding that it had been negligent in dealing with an employee who suffered a breakdown due to overwork.

It was found that the employee was acknowledged to be a very good worker. The employee had made written and verbal representations to managers about lack of resources and excessive hours she was working. The court found that the injury to health was foreseeable, the employer negligent and damages of £134,000 were awarded.

The employer argued that the court placed too high a burden on it because the period between the date upon which ill health became foreseeable and the date upon which ill health occurred was very short. The employer maintained that procedures had been put in place quickly but in this particular case it was adjudged that acting quickly was not enough, immediate action was required. Another argument related to the employer’s view that his provision of a counselling service for use by employees was sufficient to discharge his duty of care (reference to Sutherland –v- Hatton).

The court said that provision of such a counselling service was not of itself a panacea by which duty of care could be discharged. Provision of a Counseller may assist but if the real problems relates to impossible workloads then the courts will not accept that just providing counselling deals with the reality of the situation.

The above case followed Tina Marie Hiles –v- South Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust (2006) where the claimant relied on incidents where she exhibited signs of distress as evidence of foreseeability – and won damages.

In the case of Clark –v- The Chief Constable of Essex Police (2006) a Police Officer alleged that he experienced sustained bullying, harassment and intimidation from fellow Officers, one of whom was his Line Manager over a number of years. In addition, he was demoted and eventually retired from active service on medical grounds, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and shingles (brought on by the stress). The key issue in this case was foreseeability. The Judge concluded that on the evidence it was foreseeable that the acts of the Chief Constable’s employees could lead to mental and physical distress and the Officer was able to overcome the foreseeabilty test set out in Sutherland –v- Hatton. The Chief Constable was therefore liable to the Officer for his injuries, there was no reduction for contributory negligence because the court considered that the Officer had done all he needed to do to mitigate his loss by raising his concerns with his superior Officers.

A further potentially significant development occurred following the House of Lords Judgment in 2006 in the case of Majrowski –v- Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Trust.

William Majrowski worked for an NHS Trust as an Audit Co-ordinator and claimed that he had been bullied by his Manager. Mr Majrowski said that he was criticised for his timekeeping and his work, that he was isolated and that his manager was abusive towards him in front of his colleagues because he was gay.

The distinctive aspect of the case was that Mr Majrowski did not relay upon the common law arguments, but on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Defendant argued that the Protection from Harassment Act was never intended to be used as such a weapon i.e. in relation to civil/reparation cases. Its intention was to provide protection from anti social behaviour.

However the Act was drafted sufficiently widely to be able to cover bullying at work and the House of Lords upheld that there was no reason why the statute should not be applied to the workplace. Section 1 of the Act states that a person must not pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. There must be harassment on at least two occasions to breach Section 1. Although intended predominantly as a criminal statute, Section 2 of the Act provides for civil claims for damages where the Act has been breached. Harassment is not defined in the Act – it need only amount to “alarming the person or causing the person distress”, and speech alone is sufficient. Also, the harassment does not have to be institutional either. In Marjowski the allegations were made against the claimant’s Line Manager personally. The claimant successfully argued that his employer was vicariously liable for the Line Manager’s breach of the Act.

Although the case involved bullying/harassment, potentially again the lines crossed in relation to such acts and harassment at work due to overwork. Potentially it was anticipated that this Judgment would result in stress claims being based on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that the tests laid down in previous cases, quite possibly with the express intention of restricting the number of stress claims, has been replaced by the strict liability of this statute.

Further developments are awaited in this area, and we will look to provide updates to this article as and when they occur.

Road Traffic Injuries in Scotland

2007-04-23T09:24:00.000-07:00

Road traffic accidents are extremely common in Scotland, and occur at a rate of 160,000 a year in the UK according to Government statistics. Most of these are minor accidents, but every year thousands of people are injured on the roads in Scotland.

If you have been involved in a road traffic accident or collision, whether as a driver, a passenger, or a pedestrian, you may be entitled to a personal injury compensation claim. At Quantum Claims we have an excellent track record of successful personal injury claims resulting from road traffic accidents through no fault of our clients, obtaining hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation awards.

Statistics again confirm that the majority of road traffic accident claims are not pursued, and the first step to establishing if you have a claim for compensation for injury as a result of a road traffic accident is to call Quantum Claims at no cost to you, whereupon you will be able to discuss matters with a Claims Handler at one of our five claims specialists offices throughout Scotland. At Quantum Claims our "no win, no fee" policy means you can't lose."

Negligence Claim after a Road Accident Injuring a Cyclist

2007-04-17T10:10:00.000-07:00

In an important case covering duty of care during excavation work a 56 year old housewife, Ms, C sought damages from T, a joiner and small building contractor.

Ms C sought damages in respect of injuries sustained after she went over the handlebars of her bicycle near a site on which T was working. She claimed that she fell from her bicycle as a result of debris left on the road following work contracted out by T to M, a company specialising in excavation. Ms C endured serious and painful injuries, losing a crown from her tooth, suffering a broken jaw and a collapsed lung.

Ms C argued that it would reasonable to anticipate the danger of debris causing an accident. She asserted that (1) it should have been anticipated that some debris would contaminate the road and it was Ts duty to take reasonable care to avoid deposits or remove any as soon as was reasonably possible; and (2) T could not escape liability even if he proved that M were independent contractors: the hiring of plant and drivers to do a job under the direction of the main contractor was not a subcontract.

The action was dismissed because it was held that (1) there was insufficient evidence to conclude what had caused Ms C to fall, and witness statements did not support her account of what happened. (2) It was not proved that T knew the road was subjected to deposits of mud to a material extent as to make it reasonably foreseeable that passing cyclists might come to harm, furthermore, the fact that deposits were 150 yards from the site of the accident made it less likely that the incident was a foreseeable consequence of the work.

It was observed by the court that it was clear from the evidence that the relationship between T and M was more than just a hiring of equipment, and had the matter gone to debate earlier, it might well be that the issue of whether Ms C had pled enough to found a case on the neighbourhood principle would have been resolved out of court.

It was the court's opinion, that had liability been established, the parties were agreed that compensation of damages would have been assessed at £12,360 at 4 per cent from the date of the accident to the date of decree, with loss for "hurt" at £294 with interest at 8 per cent, and patrimonial loss in respect of dental costs at £643 with interest on £243 from 1 January 2002 until the date of decree, less the deduction of 25 per cent for contributory negligence.

Employers Liability Law for Casual Workers

2007-04-12T09:20:00.000-07:00

Quantum Claims have noted an important case in Employment Law relating to casual workers. In an important case from 2002, Allison v. Davidson, a man was asked, with another, to do some painting by a publican. During the work, one of the men fell from a ladder which was too short. When this case came to court, it was accepted that there would be liability for compensation if the man had been employed by the defender under the 1992 Workplace Regulations. It was decided that the defender was indeed liable under these regulations — even although it was only a single job — about as casual as casual employment can be.

All cases are unique, but if you've been in an accident or injured whilst doing casual work for an employer, you may be entitled to compensation under the 1992 legislation. For more details, see the accidents at work section of our website or contact us by telephone or email here. Quantum Claims work exclusively on a no win no fee basis, which can take much of the stress out of pursuing a claim through the courts.

Repetitive Strain Injuries

2007-03-18T13:51:00.000-07:00

Repetitive strain injury, as a condition or disease, does not exist. It is merely a descriptive term used for a mechanism of injury, which tends to encompass a number of different injuries and conditions.

Although strain and injury caused by repetitive movement has been a feature of the workplace for years, it did not become a matter of public knowledge or concern until the 1970s. Recently people have made successful compensation claims for repetitive strain injuries.

The following conditions can be caused by repetitive strain, however it is important to acknowledge that they can also incur in people who have not been engaged in repetitive work. Therefore although it is in most cases quite easy to prove that someone has been involved in a repetitive movement at work, it is more difficult to establish causation, i.e. prove beyond reasonable doubt that the condition itself has been caused by the repetitive movement and not as a matter of natural course.

TENOSYNOVITIS

This condition is the inflammation of the lubricate sheath known as the synovium which surrounds and protects the various tendons passing through the wrist and into the hand. A person suffers from true tenosynovitis only when there is inflammation of the synovium. The main cause of true tenosynovitis is secondary to rheumatoid arthritis or tuberculosis, though the condition may be aggravated by repetitive work. The link between repetitive work and true tenosynovitis is widely accepted.

PERI-TENINITIS

This is an inflammation of the junction between the muscle and the thumb extensor tendons on the inner side of the wrist. It is accepted that this condition is directly caused by rapid repeat movements and thus may be caused by repetitive work.

DE QUERVAIN’S SYNDROME

This condition is caused by the thickening of the fibrous sheath of the tendons. It causes constriction of the tendons and occasionally results in actual inflammation of the tenosynovium. It is known to be cause by repeated pinching or gripping with the thumb or repeated ulnar deviation of the wrist. It can also develop spontaneously and it is more prevalent among women than men. Causation will always be an issue and a court is more likely to find repetitive strain as a mechanism of injury if the repetitive strain involved was repeated pinching, gripping or ulnar deviation of the wrist.

TENDONITIS

This is inflammation of the tendons themselves leading to pain and swelling. The tendons can become locked into the sheaths so that the finger may become locked in flexion. This is commonly known as trigger finger. The relation between the condition and repetitive work is controversial. Where a claimant suffers from tendonitis the nature of the repetitive work must be analysed. If it reveals that the material tendon is being repeatedly used to its extremes of movements, again the chances of establishing a link is more likely.

CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

This is a common condition in which the median nerve is compressed in the carpal tunnel. The carpal tunnel is a form of protective covering in the vicinity of the wrist through which all the nerves and tendons pass. Most usually the condition effects women between 45-55 years of age, strongly suggesting as hormonal cause. This is particularly common among data input workers. There is a body of medical literature which demonstrates that repeated use of the hand and wrist is associated with the onset of the condition. However the majority opinion seems to be against the view that carpal tunnel syndrome can be caused by repetitive strain injury.

EPICONDYLITIS (TENNIS ELBOW)

This occurs when the muscle joins the bone at the elbow, causing pain and swelling. It frequently arises spontaneously, without any precipitating factor such as sport or stressful work. However the relationship between repetitive strain and this condition is firmly established. It may be caused by such jobs as repeated hammering, bricklaying and lifting with outstretched fingers under pressure. Undoubtedly, repetition alone is not sufficient to bring on this condition. The work must be relatively heavy, placing strain upon the elbow.

BURSITIS

Inflammation of the saclike cavity situated in places in tissues where friction would otherwise occur. The most common type is prepatellar bursitis which is situated in the front of the patella in the knee area. Commonly know as housemaids knee. The link between repetitive kneeling and this condition is well established.

I cannot emphasise the importance of understanding the importance of a proper diagnosis in repetitive strain injury cases. The vast majority of clients that come and see me seeking leagal advice for compensation claims are already convinced that they have a repetitive strain injury. They were not in pain, they went to work, had a pain ergo, work causes pain, simple! Often the client has been diagnosed by his GP or occupational health as having “RSI”. Often they are on long term sick leave and have little confidence that they will be able to return to their employment. Many of them will have applied for and successfully obtained Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit as a result of an injury caused at work. There are many other causes of pain that can cause similar symptoms but are not work related. Carpal tunnel syndrome I have already touched upon but we must also discount acute cervical sprain, osteo arthritis, cervical spondylosis, cervical rib, Raynaud’s phenonomen, vibration white finger and fractures of the wrist, scaphoid etc.

However without an appropriate understanding of the cause of their pain and suffering it is very difficult to seek either compensation or rehabilitation.

Another real difficulty in diagnoses is that pain caused by repetitive strain is often defuse. Not all the conditions will be caused by the work but may be naturally occurring and aggravated by the work. Not everyone may develop the symptoms. Many people can work in precisely the same conditions and at the same speed but only one of two will develop such symptoms. Symptoms do tend to develop gradually and often people imagine that it is simply a question of getting used to the job or changes that have been made in the job. The employees approach to repetitive strain injury will vary. Some employees will assume it is repetitive strain and instigate a reporting procedure to their employers. Other employees will ignore the pain for years, in the hope that it will go away naturally.

It is important to emphasise the importance of proper diagnosis in repetitive strain injury compensation cases. Often an individual has been diagnosed by a GP or Occupational Health person as having “repetitive strain injury”. However not all conditions will be caused by the workplace, in some instances they may occur naturally and be aggravated by work. It is also important to emphasise that not everyone in for instance a factory production line may develop problems/symptoms, many people can work in precisely the same conditions and at the same speed, but only one or two will develop symptoms. Symptoms do tend to develop slowly, and people’s reactions to the develop can greatly vary.

There is clearly a wide variety of repetitive strains that employees are faced with at work. In most instances in considering a claim there are three major factors that require to be considered.

1. Force
2. Frequency and duration of movement
3. The awkward posture that may be adopted with the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder or even back.

Occasionally one of the above factors may be responsible for a problem developing, but more often a combination of two or sometimes three. It is when a repetitive effort is repeated throughout a working day, and for a lengthy period of employment, that most instances of repetitive strain injury occur.

The above list of conditions is not exhaustive, and should a person feel that a condition or injury has been caused by a repetitive movement at work, they should look to obtain advice regarding the potential for claiming compensation due to industrial injury.

Industrial Deafness Compensation Claims

2007-03-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

Quantum Claims can help pursue claims against an employer for compensation due to industial deafness.

To help people considering claiming for industrial deafness compensation, Quantum Claims have compiled typical aspects/questions we would discuss with you when assessing any claim.

These include:

1. The nature of the work involved.

2. The various work areas where you were exposed to noise.

3. Any noisy processes, machinery, tools or equipment which you have used or which you have been exposed to. Also, the types and locations of machinery which have potentially changed over the years.

4. What ear protection/protectors, if any, were supplied by an employer, and when the protection was supplied.

5. What complaints, if any, were made by you or others concerning noise or lack of ear protection.

6. When and in what circumstances were you first aware that you were suffering from noise induced deafness.

7. To what extent do you find your loss of hearing a disabling factor in social, working or family life.

8. What medical advice or treatment have you received about the loss of hearing, or indeed tinnitus.

Obviously points 6 and 8 are important from the point of view of identifying the date of knowledge, on which you became, aware of the fact that you had industrial deafness attributable in whole or in part to an employer or employers.

Do contact Quantum Claims directly if you have any questions, or leave a comment here.

UK Employment Law review

2007-03-06T10:01:00.000-08:00

There have been some recent ammendments to the UK legislation covering emploment law, which affect your statutory rights as an employee. Quantum Claims have reviewed these key changes.

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. as well as paternity and adoption regulations 2006 (ammendment)

An employee no longer needs to have six months’ service to qualify for additional maternity leave (‘AML’)

An employee intending to return early from AML or additional adoption leave (AML) must give her employer eight weeks’ notice of her intended return date (increased from four weeks)

An employee on maternity leave can agree with her employer to work for up to 10 days during the maternity leave period without it bringing her period of leave to an end or affecting her SMP during the rest of that week.
Employers are allowed to maintain reasonable contact with an employee whilst on maternity leave.
These changes to the law apply to expected date of birth or placement on or after 1 April 2007.

National Minimum Wage

The national minimum wage is now £5.35 per hour. The adult rate of the National Minimum Wage will increase from £5.05 to £5.35 per hour, while the youth rate, paid to 18-21 year olds, will go up from £4.25 per hour to £4.45. The rate for 16-17 year olds will increase from £3.00 an hour to £3.30 per hour.

Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2006

Increases, from 1 February 2007, the limits applying to certain awards of employment tribunals, and other amounts payable under employment legislation.

Increasing the Holiday Entitlement – A Further Consultation – January 2007

In light of the response to the initial consultation above, the government is now consulting on detailed proposals and draft regulations to increase the holiday entitlement under UK employment law. It proposes to amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 to increase the statutory entitlement to paid holiday from four weeks to 4.8 weeks from 1 October 2007, and from 4.8 weeks to 5.6 weeks on 1 October 2008, subject to a maximum statutory entitlement of 28 days.

The DTI seeks views on the draft regulations and on implementation of this change. In particular they would like feedback on what guidance would help employers to introduce the additional holiday entitlement. Responses are welcome from all – businesses, trades unions, representative bodies, individuals and others. Consultation ends on 13 April 2007.

Flexible Working Regulations

The Flexible Working (Eligibility, Complaints and Remedies) (Amendment) Regulations come into force in the UK on 6 April 2007. It extends the right to request flexible working to certain carers of adults. The Regulations provide that an employee may make a request for flexible working if the employee is, or expects to be caring for a person who is over the age of 18 and in need of care, and who is either married to or the partner or civil partner of the employee; a relative of the employee; or living at the same address as the employee. This right is subject to a qualifying period of 26 weeks continuous employment. It should however be noted that carers who submit such a request are not guaranteed to be granted flexible working patterns.

Sickness Payments

As from 6 April 2006 Statutory Sick Pay (Standard Rate) will increase from £68.20 per week to £70.05 per week. The maximum period which can be claimed is 28 weeks in any 3 year period.

Parental Payment Monetary and Period Limits

As from 6 April 2006.

Type of payment	Current rate (previous limit)	Max. period


Statutory maternity pay (higher rate)	90% of normal weekly earnings	6 weeks

Statutory maternity pay (basic rate)	£108.85 (£106.00) a week or 90% of normal weekly earnings if lower	20 weeks

Maternity allowance	£108.85 (£106.00) a week or 90% of normal weekly earnings if lower	26 weeks

Statutory paternity pay	£108.85 (£106.00) a week or 90% of normal weekly earnings if lower	2 weeks

Statutory adoption pay	£108.85 (£106.00) a week or 90% of normal weekly earnings if lower	26 weeks

Quantum Claims Employment Law Review

2007-02-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

Recent information has been issued by the Employment Tribunal Service regarding the level of employment law claims that are being submitted and rejected

The expectation for the financial year 2006/2007 were that the level of claims received by the Employment Tribunal Service would be broadly similar to the levels received in 2005/2006. That however has not been the case and in the period April to November 2006 the number of claims received was 27% higher than it had been in the corresponding period in 2005/2006.

Whilst much of this increase is attributed to local authority and NHS equal pay claims the level of single claims were 7% higher than the in previous corresponding period.

In respect of age discrimination claims which are relatively new the Government expected that the Employment Tribunals would receive some 4,000 cases by the end of March 2007. However up until November 2007 the number of race discrimination claims received nationally amounted to 126 of which 97 were received in Scotland (77%).

What is clear is that the Dispute Resolution Regulations are causing Claimants difficulty in respect of registering their claims.

Figures indicate that some 10,000 claims have been rejected each year and of those 10,000 60% were not resubmitted.

Whilst the DTI are conducting the search into reasons why employment claims were not resubmitted, our own view is that the Dispute Resolution Regulations are the main reason why claims are not resubmitted.

A review of the Regulations are currently being carried out by Michael Gibbons, a member of the DTI Ministerial Challenge Panel and of the Better Regulation Committee and it is expected that recommendations for change are expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in Spring 2007.

What is clear that thousands of Bona Fide claims are not being submitted due to the onerous hurdles that Claimants and their direct representatives face when lodging claims to the Employment Tribunal.