Michaelmas Term
[2019] UKSC 54
On appeal from: [2018] EWCA Civ 1299
JUDGMENT
|
Edwards on behalf of the estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)
|
|
before
Lady Hale, President Lord Reed, Deputy President Lord Lloyd-Jones Lord Sales Lord Thomas
|
|
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON |
|
|
|
|
|
20 November 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
Heard on 25 July 2019 |
|
Appellant |
|
Respondent |
|
Michael Pooles QC |
|
Richard Copnall |
|
Matthew Jackson |
|
Abigail Telford |
|
(Instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP (Bristol)) |
|
(Instructed by BPS Law LLP (Manchester)) |
LORD LLOYD-JONES: (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Sales and Lord Thomas agree)
1. Mr Thomas Arthur Watkins lived near Tredegar in South Wales. He was employed by the National Coal Board (later British Coal Corporation) (“British Coal”) as a miner from 1964 until 1985. In that employment he was required to use vibratory tools and as a result of such exposure, in common with very many other miners, Mr Watkins developed Vibration White Finger (“VWF”) which is a form of Hand/Arm Vibration Syndrome (“HAVS”). He first experienced the symptoms, which consist of whitening, stiffness, numbness and tingling of the fingers of both hands, not later than the early 1980s. After he left the employment of British Coal in 1985, he worked as a driver of road sweeping vehicles until he retired in 1997. Shortly after that he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both knees which became increasingly acute. One symptom of VWF can be a reduction in grip strength and manual dexterity in the fingers. A common, although not invariable, consequence is that a person suffering from these conditions becomes unable, without assistance, to carry out routine domestic tasks such as gardening, do it yourself or car maintenance.
The Scheme
2. A group of test cases, representative of some 25,000 similar claims, established that British Coal had been negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to limit the exposure of employed miners to VWF from the excessive use of vibratory tools (Armstrong v British Coal Corpn [1998] CLY 975). As a result, the Department for Trade and Industry (“DTI”), which had assumed responsibility for British Coal’s relevant liabilities, set up a scheme in 1999 to provide tariff-based compensation to miners who suffered from VWF as a result of exposure to excessive vibration (“the Scheme”). The Scheme was administered pursuant to a Claims Handling Arrangement (“the CHA”) dated 22 January 1999 and made between the DTI and a group of solicitors’ firms representing claimant miners suffering from VWF. The central objective of the CHA was to enable very large numbers of similar claims to be presented, examined and resolved expeditiously. The Scheme contemplated the making of two main types of compensatory award to miners suffering from VWF, corresponding broadly with general and special damages for personal injuries. The Scheme provided for compensation to be paid for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (“General Damages”), and for handicap on the labour market and other financial losses (“Special Damages”) including past and/or future loss of earnings. Pursuant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] UKSC 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AI summary not yet generated for this case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.