Insights / News
Insights / News
The Deceased in this case, Mr Rix, was exposed to asbestos by the Defendant in the 1970s. He developed mesothelioma and died in 2016 aged 60. His widow brought a claim against the Defendant under the FAA for damages including a claim for loss of financial dependency.
In the High Court, the Defendant had argued that there was no loss of dependency as the Claimant had inherited the business, which remained profitable after Mr Rix’s death (indeed it had become more so). Hence it was said that there was no loss under section 3 of the FAA. The judge (Cavanagh J), however, decided that the Claimant had in fact suffered a loss of dependency on the profits from the business.
The Defendant appealed, on three grounds:
The Court of Appeal considered the existing authorities on the assessment of financial dependency under the FAA when it arises from the loss of profits from a business, as distinct from the more straightforward situation involving dependency on salary. Having reviewed the relevant authorities, the decision by the Court of Appeal sets out some principles applicable to such dependency claims under the Fatal Accidents Act (“the FAA”), which applies in many mesothelioma cases, confirming a position that is broadly favourable to Claimants.
Read the judgment here.
Will Young‘s practice has a particularly focus on personal injury claims, with him acting for both Claimants and Defendants, although more often for Claimants. His cases involve a wide range of such claims, including road traffic accidents, claims under the Occupiers Liability Act, and the Fatal Accidents Act, as well as employers’ liability claims (including stress-at-work claims) and cross-border personal injury claims.