It has now been announced that there is going to be an appeal.  So we await what the Inner House of the Court of Session has to say.  I will try and keep an eye on what that is likely to be heard, and post accordingly.

At least in the event of their taking a different view, and perhaps anyway it will be appealed on to the third level, I imagine.

John Blackie

Professor John  W G Blackie

email: john.blackie@strath.ac.uk<mailto:john.blackie@strath.ac.uk>

Mobile: 07917728908

Home Office phone: +44 (0)131 202 6481

Home Office Address:

The Old Coach House

23a Russell Place

Edinburgh

EH8 9YL

Departmental Address:

The Law School

University of Strathclyde

The Lord Hope Building

St James' Road

Glasgow G4 0LT

phone: +44 (0)131 202 6481

fax: +44 (0)141 548 3639

________________________________

From: James Lee [j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk]

Sent: 18 January 2010 13:05

To: obligations@uwo.ca

Subject: RE: Judicial review of pleural plaques legislation refused by Scottish courts

Dear Colleagues,

I largely agree with Martin’s assessment, and offer just a footnote as to UK Government’s current position. The Northern Ireland Executive plans to legislate in line with the Scots Act. The UK Government has suggested that this complicates matters somewhat. In any event, the Ministry of Justice consultation on pleural plaques opened on 9th July 2008 and closed on the 1st October 2008. The Ministry of Justice consultation opened on 9th July 2008 and closed on the 1st October 2008. On 21st July 2009, in response to a parliamentary question, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor said that the Government would be publishing its decision after the summer recess, but it has yet to do so and the Government continues to express no view on the point of law.

Parallel to this, a Private Member’s Bill has been making its way through Parliament, at the motion of Andrew Dismore MP. The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill is largely modelled on the Scots provision and would apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill has received its Third Reading in the Commons and has progressed to the House of Lords, where it has had its First Reading. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/damagesasbestosrelatedconditions.html. However, it appears that Mr Dismore has also introduced a sequel, the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (No. 2) Bill, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/damagesasbestosrelatedconditionsno2.html, which has had its first reading in the Commons, but the text is not yet available. Neither Bill has the support of the Government, and may not be passed before this year’s general election in any case.

Best wishes,

James

--

James Lee

Lecturer

Director of the LLB Programme

Birmingham Law School

University of Birmingham

Edgbaston

Birmingham

B15 2TT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629

E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk

________________________________

From: Martin Hogg [mailto:mhogg@staffmail.ed.ac.uk]

Sent: 18 January 2010 08:21

To: obligations@uwo.ca

Subject: ODG: Judicial review of pleural plaques legislation refused by Scottish courts

Dear List members,

Though it has more in it of interest for constitutional lawyers than private lawyers, you may be interested in the decision of the Scottish judge Lord Emslie, handed down last Friday, in the Petition of Axa General Insurance Ltd and others for Judicial Review of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 [the recent statute founding liability for pleural plaques in Scotland]. The decision is reported here:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH02.html

The pleural plaques Act had been challenged by a number of insurance companies as falling outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament (which, as a devolved parliament, takes its legislative authority from an act of the Westminster Parliament, the Scotland Act 1998) and as contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 1 of the First Protocol.

The Scottish Government challenged the petitioners' locus standi to raise the petition, a challenge Lord Emslie rejected. His Lordship also rejected the Governments' contention that the Scotland Act contained

"anything sufficient, whether by clear words or necessary implication, to oust the fundamental supervisory jurisdiction of the courts at common law and thus - in the absence of any relevant procedural framework - make the Parliament the sole judge of the rationality of its own legislation"

holding it did not, and that therefore common law judicial review of Acts passed by the Scottish Parliament was permissible.

On the ground of the judicial review, the petitioners were essentially arguing (re Article 6 of the ECHR) that "the 2009 Act imposed an unconscionable burden on the insurance industry and .... represented illegitimate State interference in pending proceedings" (para 152 of the judgment), and (re Protocol 1) that (a) "the Rothwell decision in the House of Lords was an asset of enormous commercial value and importance to the insurance industry" (para 181) and (b) "even if the immunity conferred by Rothwell did not qualify as a "possession" for the purposes of A1P1, then the petitioners' capital resources must surely do so".

Lord Emslie rejected both of these contentions, holding:

(1) the rule established by the ECHR in Zielinski v France, namely that "the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute" had not been infringed in this case; and

(2) an immunity from legal claims is not a proprietary right under Protocol 1; further Lord Emslie was  "not persuaded that the facilitation of pleural plaques claims should be held to constitute a relevant interference with the petitioners' capital resources. To my mind such consequences are simply too remote from the legislation to qualify." (para 195).

There are a few comments at the beginning and end of the judgment on the nature of pleural plaques. If I might just highlight one - at para 207, Lord Emslie says:

"Radiological diagnosis of pleural plaques is, of course, an essential pre-requisite before section 1 of the Act can come into play, and contrary to the petitioners' submissions it is the presence of these pathological lesions and not mere exposure to asbestos which defines the benefited class [under the Act]."

With respect to his Lordship, the 'pathological' description is somewhat controversial. We know from the view of the common law and medical science that pleural plaques are not pathological (i.e. caused by disease) - they can surely therefore only be called 'pathological' if one accepts the contrary provision in section 1 of the Act that 'asbestos-related pleural plaques are a personal injury', a statement I continue to believe undermines the coherency of the idea of injury in delict/tort. However, I would not suggest that this minor point has any bearing on the overall correctness of the decision.

Though I am not a public lawyer, I suspect that on the public law/constitutional matters the judgment is consistent with prior authority, especially prior decisions on the legitimacy of devolved legislation. However, personally I continue to find the Act itself an hysterical and politically motivated response to clever lobbying by certain interest groups, though it is doubtless too late now to continue to make that point.

More interesting perhaps for list members than the public law aspects of the decision might be the question of if and how the judgment may affect the current ongoing consideration by the UK Justice Ministry on what to do about pleural plaques. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Whitewall when that is discussed.

Best wishes,

Martin Hogg

Edinburgh Law School