Disease Brief. 24 November Welcome to the final edition of Disease Brief for 2014.

Transcription

1 24 November 2014 Disease Brief Welcome to the final edition of Disease Brief for The Supreme Court has extended protection for victims of asbestos-related diseases, by ruling that the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 applied to all workers in factories where asbestos was being processed. We consider the implications of the decision in further detail below. The Mesothelioma Act came into force on 1 September 2014, establishing the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme. The scheme makes payments to eligible victims (or their dependants) who currently have no redress to compensation. The applicable regulations come into force on 28 November 2014 and will require active insurers to pay towards the scheme by way of an annual levy based on their relative market share. The first annual report reviewing the scheme will be published by the Department for Work and Pensions on or before 30 November Meanwhile, the High Court has confirmed that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) did not carry out a proper review of the effects of removing the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 exemption for mesothelioma claims. The Government is continuing to consider the way forward in light of the judgment. The rise in industrial deafness claims continues to make headlines. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has reiterated its call for the need for fixed legal fees to be introduced to curb excessive legal costs that are being generated through deafness claims. The ABI s James Dalton also called for the existing claims Portal to be adapted to deal with multi-defendant claims, or in the alternative, a stand-alone deafness portal. The MoJ states that it believes its new 'fundamental dishonesty' rule as contained in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill could lead not only to the number of personal injury claims being reduced but may have some form of deterrent effect against exaggeration. The House of Lords put their support behind the rule by passing the draft Bill without amendment. The Lords also passed new Government amendments to ban the offering of inducements or rewards for bringing personal injury claims. In terms of civil litigation more broadly, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee is continuing to consider how Part 36 can be reformed to simplify it. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has also appointed a panel of three financial investment experts to advise on the question of whether to change the discount rate. The likely decision for both developments is April As always, I hope you enjoy reading this edition and welcome your feedback. Philippa Craven Partner Page 1 of 16

2 Case reviews Asbestos: low dose exposure Occupier not liable; probable exposure was below the level at which protective respiratory equipment was required at the time - Macarthy (Executor of the estate of Heward) and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another [ ]. Implications This judgment provides much needed guidance and clarification on the common law liability of occupiers for asbestos exposure that occurred after the publication of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Guidance Note EH10 in December 1976 but before it was revised in July Prior to this decision, EH10 was widely thought to exclude any defence to a claim in negligence where some exposure is proved, no matter the levels or dosage, where no precautions were taken. In his judgment, Mr David Pittaway QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, applied the rationale of the Court of Appeal in Williams v University of Birmingham [2011]. He held that the following questions had to be judged by reference to the state of knowledge and practice at the relevant time: What an employer ought to have reasonably foreseen about the consequences of any exposure to asbestos. The reasonable conduct that an employer ought to have adopted. He carefully analysed EH10 and concluded: The levels of dust to which the deceased was exposed at the time did not give rise to a foreseeable risk of injury. EH10 did not extend to requiring the use of a respirator or protective clothing. This is an important development in the law relating to low dose asbestos exposure cases. It will be particularly relevant to cases where claimants were not working with asbestos but were exposed to levels in excess of background levels, for example building materials in schools. The decision will have a significant impact on the new waves of asbestos exposure claims that are coming forward. Engineering evidence and close scrutiny of the Page 2 of 16

3 applicable legislation and guidance will be critical to the successful defence of low dose asbestos exposure claims into the future. Background The claim arose out of the deceased s death from mesothelioma. He worked for a family company (the Third Party). The only known exposure to asbestos dust occurred whilst he was working at stores operated by the Defendant. Two distinct periods of asbestos exposure were relied on: About three weeks in the summer of 1967, whilst working as a joiner at the Defendant s store in York. Whilst carrying out surveys and inspections at the Defendant s stores between 1967 and A central question was the legislation and guidance available in relation to the risks of asbestos. In particular, in 1976 the HSE published EH10, which provided that exposure to all forms of asbestos dust should be reduced to the minimum that is reasonably practicable and should never exceed the hygiene standards set out. This Guidance Note was reissued in 1983, to include the provision that it was the responsibility of the person in charge of the works to ensure that precautions were adequate. Decision The Judge held that the claim against the Defendant failed: The deceased s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos in an occupational setting. He contracted mesothelioma whilst he was carrying out work at the Defendant s stores sometime between 1967 and 1984, when he began to wear protective respiratory equipment and clothing. However, the Defendant not was in breach of its common law duty of care owed to the Claimant under s.2(1) Occupiers Liability Act Assessed by the standards of the time, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the Defendant should have appreciated that the presence of asbestos dust was likely to be injurious to the health of other contractors on site see Williams v University of Birmingham. The extent of the risk that the deceased faced, where his probable exposure did not exceed 30 fibres/ml, was below the level at which protective respiratory equipment was required, or indeed recommended, at the time. By 1984, the risks of exposure were firmly recognised, leading to the implementation by the Defendant of guidance for contractors. Page 3 of 16

4 Had he found for the Claimant, he would also have found for the Defendant against the Third Party, which he would have assessed at 50%. By 1983 the Third Party should have taken steps to ensure that employees working on damaged pipework or replacing tiles wore personal protective equipment. For more information contact Janine Clark Fatal accident claim: assessment of damages High Court determines appropriate approach; Claimant seeking permission to appeal to Supreme Court in relation to multiplier - Knauer v Ministry of Justice [ ]. Implications The Claimant has made an application for permission to bring a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court - on the multiplier issue - which was filed in August The outcome of the application is not known at this stage. If the Supreme Court decides to hear this appeal the door will open for the Court to consider whether the traditional method of assessing the multiplier for dependency in fatal accident claims continues to be appropriate. It has long been the case that the multiplier for dependency is assessed at the date of death rather than the date of trial, for two main reasons: It could not be assumed that the deceased would have remained alive, well and in the same employment up to the date of trial. A doctrine ignoring this inherent uncertainty was contrary to principle. As stated by Lord Bridge in Graham v Dodds [1983], a date of trial approach would lead to the highly undesirable anomaly that in fatal accident cases the longer the trial of the dependants claim could be delayed the more they would eventually recover. Claimants, in direct challenge to this approach, contend that: The approach adopted in Cookson v Knowles [1978] and Graham v Dodds predates the use of the Odgen tables. The Ogden tables are calculated taking into account mortality, other contingencies and accelerated receipt, thereby providing 100% compensation, rather than the under compensation argued by claimants currently to be the case. Inherent uncertainty about the time period between death and trial is no longer an issue as the multiplier can be adjusted to take this into account. Page 4 of 16

5 The courts now have enhanced case management powers under the Civil Procedure Rules to deal with delay. As a result, it is no longer necessary to distort the approach to calculating dependency to deal with a problem which can be rectified by procedural means. The reality for defendants is that if you do the maths on the Knauer claim and follow the suggested approach there is a difference of over 50,000 to the value of the claim. This is not a purely academic discussion and will have wide implications for reserving in fatal accident claims. In addition, it may negatively impact the conduct of these already very tragic and emotive claims if defendants are driven by a change of law to accelerate the trial date in order to minimise the multiplier. Background Between 1997 and 2007 Sally Knauer was employed as an administrator at Guy s Marsh Prison. As a result of exposure to asbestos at the prison, she contracted mesothelioma. She died in 2009 at the age of 46. The Claimant was her widower. Liability was admitted. An assessment of damages hearing took place to consider differences between the parties on certain issues. Decision In relation to the key issues in dispute, Mr Justice Bean held as follows: PSLA: an award of 80,000 was appropriate. Multiplier: the Claimant submitted that the period to trial should be treated as special damages (with a small discount for the uncertainties of life but none for accelerated receipt) and the multiplier for future loss should start at the date of trial or judgment. That is essentially what the Law Commission recommended in its 1999 report, Claims for Wrongful Death'. Bean J stated that he would follow that course if it were open to him to do so. However, he was bound by the decisions of the House of Lords in Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds in which the conventional approach was set out and adopted. On this basis, he fixed one overall multiplier from the date of death. Services dependency: the Defendant submitted that there should be no award for past or future services dependency, on the basis that, in the five years since Mrs Knauer had died, the Claimant had not engaged a cook, cleaner, gardener or decorator. Bean J rejected this argument. The Claimant was entitled to the value of what he had lost. He allowed a multiplicand of 18,140, resulting in an award of over 400,000. Page 5 of 16

6 For more information please contact Janine Clark Mesothelioma: liability of occupier Supreme Court upholds decision that occupier liable for exposure to asbestos in the 1950s: it was in breach of its statutory duty under the Asbestos Industry Regulations McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc [ ]. Implications The Supreme Court s decision in relation to the ambit of the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (the Regulations ) will cause occupiers of sites to pay closer attention to asbestos claims. However, consideration must be given to each individual case, which will need to be decided on its own merits. Many defendant occupiers in the late 1950s may not have considered the full impact of failing to put appropriate measures in place to comply with the duties owed under the Regulations. Even where they did, they might have not have retained information to prove this. It should be noted that the Supreme Court held that the reference to substantial quantity of dust in s.47(1) Factories Act 1937 related to the point of production of dust and not when it was inhaled. On this basis, there can be a breach if there is substantial dust and no exhaust, even where the Claimant does not visit the site until a later date. A further issue which may arise is whether a claim such as this, against an occupier of a site, will be met by an employers liability (EL) or a public liability (PL) policy: Where an EL policy applies, it will be the policy in place at the time of inhalation (if a policy was taken out at all in those days). Where a PL policy applies, the relevant policy will be determined by manifestation of symptoms. Many modern PL policies specifically exclude cover for asbestos claims. Even where there are policies which may apply, there are likely to be arguments as to which policy should apply. Some insurers will argue that it is the policy in place five years before manifestation of symptoms, while others argue 10 years. Ultimately the facts of McDonald are case specific and there are unlikely to be many situations where the occupier of a site is pursued in preference to the employer. Defendants must remain vigilant to speculative claims but equally must ensure that, when appropriate, systems are in place to respond accordingly. Document retention is essential. Page 6 of 16

7 Background For the full background see our review of the Court of Appeal decision. In summary, the Claimant was a delivery driver. In the late 1950s he was exposed to asbestos dust while visiting Battersea Power Station. He collected waste products as part of his job. While waiting for his truck to be filled he would wander around the site and talk to others. It was his case that he was exposed to asbestos when talking to laggers who were mixing asbestos paste. At first instance the claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimant s appeal in respect of the occupier. Decision The Regulations applied to the work of mixing asbestos paste, not just dealing with asbestos in its raw, unprocessed condition. The duties owed to persons employed were not limited to those actually working in the dust producing process but to all persons employed in the factory or workshop where processing of asbestos took place, whether or not employed by the Defendant occupier. Regulation 2(a) required the mixing or blending by hand of asbestos to be carried on only with an exhaust draft effected by mechanical means to ensure as far as practicable the suppression of dust. If there was no mechanical exhaust draft, the occupier was in breach of the Regulations. The substantial dust could be dust of any kind and was not limited to asbestos or even harmful dust. Thus where an occupier failed to provide a suitable and sufficient exhaust, a breach arose. For more information please contact David Bywater david.bywater@kennedyslaw.com Mesothelioma: second claim allowed to proceed Claimant allowed to proceed with claim against three employers despite settlement of claim against eight other employers in Dowdall v William Kenyon & Sons Ltd and others [ ]. Implications Page 7 of 16

8 This case potentially paves the way for past asbestos claims where damages were settled on a full and final basis to be revisited and for further litigation to be brought. It leaves the door open for claimants to bring cases back for further damages and leaves insurers of past defendants facing the uncertainty of additional claims for contribution. In future, where asbestos claims are settled on a full and final basis, defendants will need to consider the addition of an indemnity clause into final orders so as to head off this uncertainty. Background The Claimant claimed damages for his contraction of mesothelioma. He brought an action against three companies which employed him during a long career when he was exposed to asbestos by many employers. The Claimant had already brought proceedings against eight employers, which were settled in 2003 (the first action). At the time of the first action, the only symptomatic injury from which he suffered was asbestosis. The first action was settled against seven Defendants for 26,000. A claim for provisional damages, relating to the risk of developing mesothelioma, was not pursued. Decision Andrew Edis QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the claim should be allowed to proceed: Abuse of process: it would be wrong to hold that these proceedings were an abuse of the court. The Defendants were not parties to the first action. There was no evidence that the Claimant had manipulated the process of the court with the intention of having his cake and eating it. The decision not to sue these Defendants was honestly made and was made because, in each case, the Claimant and his solicitors had been unable to discover an insurer liable to meet the claim. Cause of action estoppel: there could not be a cause of action estoppel where the parties to the litigation are not the same. Effect of 2003 settlement: the Claimant could prove that he had suffered loss as a result of the allegedly tortious conduct of these Defendants. He had suffered a condition which developed after the first action settled and for which he had not been compensated. Limitation: the Claimant s application for relief under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 was granted. The financial consequences to the Defendants of what had occurred did not, in his judgment, justify preventing the Claimant from seeking compensation for the harm which his very serious condition involved. Page 8 of 16

9 For more information please contact Philippa Craven Occupational stress: employee fails to show causation Employee who developed a serious mental illness failed to show that this was caused by her employment; her condition would have developed in any event - Olulana v London Borough of Southwark [ ]. Implications This is one of three recently reported occupational stress claims which have failed at trial. Brief details of the other two cases are as follows: Bailey v Devon Partnership NHS Trust [ ]: The Claimant suffered two breakdowns. His Honour Judge Cotter QC held that any reasonable steps taken by the Defendant would not have prevented the first breakdown, which caused the real damage to the Claimant s health. Daniel v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [ ]: The Claimant sustained a breakdown. Sir Robert Nelson held that a psychiatric injury was not foreseeable and no duty of care arose. Do such reported cases suggest an increase in occupational stress claims or a more determined effort by defendants to resist them? We suggest that the answer probably rests somewhere between the two propositions. In the wake of the Jackson reforms, we are already seeing opportunistic behaviour to generate costs and claw back some of the pre-jackson revenue. This includes, for example, making additional claims for situational anxiety or psychological or rehabilitation loss in low value claims turning what should be a straightforward matter into an unnecessarily costly one. Based on our experience, and despite the operation of qualified one-way costs shifting, more stress claims are being defended in the context of employers liability claims. Such claims frequently contain poorly drafted particulars. Taking a robust stance towards investigation is, therefore, important. Whilst appreciating the tipping point with regard to the costs of investigation, it is prudent to send out a firm message at this stage that claimants solicitors should be thinking carefully about the merits of pursuing other claims of a similar nature. Doing so may well lead to savings down the line. A claimant must always prove his case on the balance of probabilities. The claim must be properly explored before a careful decision can be taken as to whether to Page 9 of 16

10 resist the claim to trial or settle. Each case boils down to what was reasonably foreseeable for the employer, in light of what it knew, ought to have known, or was told by the claimant about the cause of his symptoms. Background The Claimant started work for the Defendant in The main events in issue were between 2002 and 2003 up to 2011 when her disabilities meant that she had to stop work. During her employment she worked in three departments and had a number of managers. Each found that she was extremely hard working, but not particularly proficient at her job as an accountant. In 2003 the Claimant began to suffer from delusions, which were symptoms of a mental illness. Her case was that her mental illness had been triggered by events and stress at work. By the time of the hearing she was so seriously mentally ill that she was unable to give evidence, although a detailed witness statement was available. Decision His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC dismissed the claim. He considered the relevant case law, in particular the Court of Appeal s guidelines in Hatton v Sutherland [2002]. Having reviewed the evidence, he held as follows: The condition from which the Claimant suffered is a neurobiological condition which has insidiously developed to the florid state that is now in... it was inevitable that that was going to happen. The Claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities any causative factor. The Defendant dealt with her in an exemplary fashion and had taken due care of her. For more information please contact David Bywater david.bywater@kennedyslaw.com Articles Page 10 of 16

11 HAVS claims: recent developments We review notable trends in hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) claims and tactics for defendants and insurers. Handicap on labour market In HAVS cases we have recently been seeing large claims for Smith v Manchester awards for handicap on the labour market arising from low levels of symptoms. Increasingly, Smith v Manchester awards are being sought for significant damages of 50,000 or more for stage 1 vascular, stage 1 sensorineural or carpal tunnel syndrome. In the past, it was rare for such claims to be intimated, and, if they were, this would have been for low lump sum figures of up to 5,000. This worrying trend is likely to be deliberately adopted as a strategy for the purpose of avoiding the portal, leveraging early settlement and increasing damages and therefore costs. These claims should be treated with caution and analysed on the particular facts. Usually individuals are capable of working with HAVS if their symptoms are at this level, provided it is controlled and monitored. Only modest awards, if any, should be allowed. Defendants should raise these queries: Is the claimant s job really at a risk on account of their symptoms? Are they now working with vibration at all? Is it adequately controlled? What are their age and qualifications? Obtain a CV. Question the medical expert as to capacity for work. Brookes arguments Claimant s solicitors have also been making use of the case of Brookes v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and another [2005] to argue that a claimant should not accept any Holtby type discount to damages as a result of exposure which occurred prior to the onset of symptoms. In Brookes the Court of Appeal did not apply a discount to damages for nonnegligent exposure to vibration prior to In that case, the Claimant had worked for the Defendant from 1982 and his symptoms began in Brookes was used by some defendants solicitors in multi-defendant actions. They argued that they should not contribute to a claim where their negligent exposure was prior to exposure with a defendant during the period when symptoms began. Page 11 of 16

12 This was on the basis that but for the later exposure the claimant would not have tipped over into symptoms. Such an argument may be contrary to the Industrial Disease Claims Working Party agreement (IDCWP) in the sense that it is arguably a dose-related type of argument expressly excluded from the IDCWP. In addition, the case itself is not necessarily an authority for defendants for this proposition. Any argument put forward by a claimant s solicitor based on Brookes should be resisted. Individuals have different susceptibilities to vibration. On the particular facts of Brookes, there was a long period of 17 years of exposure before symptoms began. It was likely on the facts that the Claimant would not have developed symptoms but for his employer s negligence after There was no evidential basis to take account of latent damage due to non-negligent exposure. Most medical experts now agree that uninterrupted exposure is causative of symptoms. Defendants should attempt to distinguish a claim from the unusual facts of Brookes. Careful questioning of the engineering and medical experts is likely to be key. That said, it is necessary to be cautious, as the courts will not necessarily apply a straight-line apportionment of damages, especially if that is seen as unfair to the claimant. The burden remains on defendants to show who contributed to the claimant s disease and to what effect. For more information please contact John Mackenzie john.mackenzie@kennedyslaw.com Occupational disease claims: latest decisions A round up of recent court decisions raising issues relating to asthma, fatal claims, HMRC employment schedules, limitation, mesothelioma and contributory negligence. Asthma: alleged occupational exposure claim fails Dass v Eastern & Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust [ ] The Claimant, a nurse, alleged that her asthma was exacerbated by exposure to paint on a hospital ward. His Honour Judge Simpkiss found that the Claimant was not injured as a result of the painting and so her claim failed on causation. In any event, the Defendant was not in breach of its duty under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations Any risk assessment would have led, inevitably, to the conclusion that there was no risk. Page 12 of 16

13 View full case review >> Contact: Caroline Speight Fatal claim: appropriate award Kadir v Mistry and others [ ] The deceased died of gastric cancer in August She was aged 32 and had four young children. The claim alleged a negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge had been correct to refuse an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as the deceased would have suffered the same symptoms two years later. However, an award of 3,500 was made for mental anguish. View full case review >> Contact: Alex Riley alex.riley@kennedyslaw.com HMRC employment schedules Yates v Commissioners for Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers [ ] The Respondents challenged the view taken by HMRC that they could not lawfully disclose HMRC employment schedules in respect of deceased persons in asbestos disease claims outside the scope of issued court proceedings. A pragmatic arrangement was agreed by the parties pending an anticipated change in the law to be included within the Deregulation Bill. Master McCloud set out a suitable process for applications to be made. Contact: Paul Morris paul.morris@kennedyslaw.com Limitation: judgment for Defendant Platt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [ ] The Claimant brought a claim against his former employer in respect of damage to his hearing. The Court of Appeal held that, more than three years before the issue of his claim form, the Claimant had constructive knowledge of the fact that his tinnitus and hearing loss were attributable in part to acts or omissions of his employer. Most significantly, in 1997 he complained to his GP about tinnitus and hearing loss in his right ear. He was referred to a specialist who asked whether he had worked in a noisy environment. It was reasonable to expect the Claimant to have asked the specialist what had caused his hearing loss. Page 13 of 16

14 Contact: Lorna Henderson Mesothelioma: Defendant not negligent McGregor v Genco (FC) Ltd [ ] The Claimant developed mesothelioma. Mrs Justice Patterson held that the Claimant had been subjected to exposure to asbestos dust in This was during her employment at a department store where the escalators were replaced. On the balance of probabilities this caused her mesothelioma. However, Patterson J was unable to accept that, in 1976, the Defendant should have appreciated that the Claimant was at risk of an asbestos related injury. Contact: John Mackenzie john.mackenzie@kennedyslaw.com Smoking: contributory negligence Blackmore v The Department for Communities and Local Government [ ] The claim arose out of the death of Mr Hollow as a result of lung cancer. During his employment with the Defendant he had been exposed to asbestos dust. Primary liability was not in issue. The deceased was a smoker. His Honour Judge Cotter QC found that the risk from smoking was probably between double and treble the risk from asbestos. He assessed contributory negligence at 30%. The deceased was a smoker long before he started work for the Defendant and long before it was known to be a hazard to health. He did not have an extensive history of having been advised to stop, he had tried to give up twice and had eventually cut down. Contact: David Bywater david.bywater@kennedyslaw.com Occupational disease claims: market developments A round up of recent news relating to the Welsh Asbestos Bill, the HSE s Beware Asbestos app, health and safety statistics, success fees in NIHL claims and an awaited Supreme Court judgment. Asbestos Bill: Wales The Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill was passed by the Welsh Assembly in November The Bill is intended to allow Welsh Ministers to recover the costs of treating people in Wales with asbestos related conditions. However, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Assembly has the power to pass the legislation. The Supreme Court hearing took place in May 2014 and judgment is awaited. Page 14 of 16

15 Beware Asbestos app The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has launched a safety campaign aimed at encouraging tradespeople to think about asbestos on every job. The HSE estimates that 1.3 million tradespeople are potentially at risk of being exposed to asbestos. A key feature of the campaign is a new web app, Beware Asbestos, which is aimed at helping to identify and deal with potential risks. Health and safety statistics The HSE has published figures for 2013/14. These indicate that there are around 5,000 deaths per year from asbestos related disease. Annual mesothelioma deaths are expected to peak towards the end of this decade. There are around 4,000 deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease each year due to past exposure to gases, dusts and fumes at work. New claims for vibration white finger and carpal tunnel syndrome have been declining over the past decade. NIHL and success fees Judgment is awaited from Mr Justice Phillips on the issue of whether noise induced hearing loss is a disease for the purpose of fixed success fees under CPR Part 45. If it is, an increased success fee would be recoverable. This follows the decision in Patterson v Ministry of Defence [2012] which involved a non-freezing cold injury, which was held not to be a disease for this purpose. Supreme Court judgment awaited Following a hearing in July 2014, judgment is awaited in International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance PLC UK. In February 2013, the Court of Appeal held that an employers liability insurer was liable to indemnify an employer for the whole of a mesothelioma claim, not just the proportion relating to its insurance period. View our case review of the Court of Appeal decision. Portal performance: increase in settled claims The Claims Portal Company has released its latest performance statistics. The total number of disease claims submitted via the portal since 30 July 2013 is 16,395 claims. 570 claims are shown to have reached agreement and the number of settled claims appears to be increasingly steadily each month. Whilst over 3,000 claims remain in the system the vast majority of claims nonetheless exit the process at various stages. Contacts: Cameron Clark cameron.clark@kennedyslaw.com or Philippa Craven philippa.craven@kennedyslaw.com Page 15 of 16

16 Kennedys is a trading name of Kennedys Law LLP. Kennedys Law LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC353214). Page 16 of 16