A study undertaken by Professor Nick Barger and published in the Quality & Safety in Health Care journal has found that 7 in 10 residents in care homes have been the victims of medication mistakes, some of which have led to adverse consequences.

According to the latest statistics published by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for the year 2007/08:-

• 229 people were killed at work

• 136,771 people were injured at work

• 2.1 million individuals were suffering from illnesses either caused or aggravated by their current or previous jobs

• 34 million working days were lost due to work related ill health

test

A Private Members Bill was recently introduced by MP, Andrew Dismore, to create an Employers Liability Insurance Bureau. Should the Bill be enacted, the new Bureau would maintain a full electronic database of all Employers Liability Insurance Policies and compensate victims who suffer injury as a result of negligence on the part of an employer where the employer is either uninsured or their insurance policy is untraceable. The All Party Parliamentary Occupational Safety & Health Group also recently called for the introduction of such a body.

A couple of years ago, the House of Lords held in the case of Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co. Ltd (2007) that companies who are responsible for causing Pleural Plaques by negligently exposing their employees and members of the public to asbestos fibres cannot be held liable for psychiatric injury caused by the fear of going onto contract a more serious asbestos related illness such as asbestosis or mesothelioma because, it maintained, pleural plaques as a condition in itself is insufficiently serious to give rise to a cause of action and the law does not recognise a duty to take care not to cause anxiety. Over 100 MP’s recently signed up to an Early Day Motion calling for the despicable decision to be overturned and it is to be hoped that the Government will act some time soon.

From the 1st October 2008, if your renting out your property, you will now need to provide your tenant with a so called “Energy Performance Certificate”. Really, of what value are these “certificates” in the lettings market? Will your prospective tenants even look at them? According to the propaganda, an Energy Performance Certificate is intended to give an estimate of the comparative energy efficiency of a property. Well, if the prospective tenant really cared about energy efficiency, its efficiency is going to be readily apparent from even a cursory inspection of the property. If the house is old and decrepit, has no central heating, no double glazing, no loft insulation, etc, then it doesn’t require an expensive report to tell them that if they take the property, then they might very well have a problem keeping warm when winter bites and they may have to consider investing in some portable electric heaters. On the other hand, if the property has gas central heating, but the boiler isn’t a modern condenser model – a matter readily discernible from a simple inspection of the property, then again it doesn’t require an expensive report to tell the prospective tenant that their gas bills might be slightly higher as a result. In our humble opinion, such certificates in the lettings market are a complete waste of money. As Basil Fawlty once put it - “Next contestant, Mrs. Sybil Fawlty from Torquay. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.”

The Court of Appeal recently held in the case of Haine v Day (2008) that where there has been a failure to consult by a company prior to its going into liquidation and where a Tribunal subsequently makes a protective award as a result, then it is recoverable as a provable debt post liquidation.

The High Court recently started a 9 week hearing into the so called “trigger issue” mesothelioma test case. In this case, insurers are arguing that liability is only “triggered” once mesothelioma develops as opposed to when the victim was exposed to asbestos. Unite, the Union which is backing the test case, contend that the insurers arguments are defective as they “breach the fundamental principle that the person who caused the damage pays”.

Only 100,000 new houses are likely to be built in the UK in 2008 according to The Observer, the lowest number since 1945 and 70,000 less than in 2007. This leaves PM, Gordon Brown’s, policy of building 240,000 new houses a year in tatters, and it was of course his Government’s decision to continue with the ludicrous policy of introducing Home Information Packs which sparked the housing market slump (along with its general mismanagement of the economy) in the first place.

The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 came into force on the 6th April 2008. However, the music and entertainment industry were granted a dispensation which provided it with extra time for implementaing the legislation. However, this runs out in a few days and from the 6th April 2008, all sectors of the entertainment industry (e.g. pubs and clubs) must comply. Essentially, compliance requires that a risk assessment be carried out where employees are exposed to noise levels of 80 decibels or more and measures taken to reduce noise exposure (i.e. hearing protection) where levels reach 85 decibels or more.

The Employment Act 2002 introduced fixed conciliation periods which limited the period ACAS had to conciliate to a defined limited period. However, the Government has now indicated that it will be abolishing fixed conciliation periods. Accordingly, from the beginning of April 2008, ACAS will now be looking to conciliate in all cases throughout the duration of each case.

Figures from the Bank of England show that the number of new mortgages being approved has fallen 39% in a year to its lowest level for 13 years. The Bank attributes the figures to a continuing slowdown in the housing market and the credit crunch.

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall (2008), the Court examined the question of when a disability condition, once symptoms have ceased, can be regarded as “likely to recur” to render it a condition classifiable as a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). Where symptoms have ceased, an employee is not regarded as disabled for the purposes of the DDA 1995. However, under the DDA 1995, the employee would be regarded as disabled if the symptoms are “likely to recur”. But when can a condition be regarded as “likely to recur”? In the Richmond case, the Court held that matters which take place subsequently to the alleged act of discrimination (i.e. such as a recurrence of symptoms) cannot be taken into account when assessing the position. The assessment must instead be based upon the state of knowledge at the time of the alleged act of discrimination and if the assessment was that the condition was unlikely to recur, then the employee cannot be regarded as disabled even if they later suffer a recurrence.

From the 1st January 2008, the level of compensation paid out for bereavement under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 increased by a pathetic £1,800 from £10,000 to £11,800. Moreover, this was the first increase since 2002. Is this really adequate compensation for the bereaved for all the misery and suffering associated with a life cut prematurely short?

The Bank of England kept interest rates on hold at 5.5% earlier this month. However, the odds are on a quarter point reduction to 5.25% in February. Indeed, with house prices falling and most of the important economic indicators pointing to a significant downturn in the economy, the Bank of England has been slow to react in reducing interest rates to a more appropriate level. Accordingly, the Bank may therefore be forced to make larger reductions later in the year to ward off recession.

In the case of Jackson v Computershare Investor Services (2007), the Court of Appeal recently held that The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (i.e. TUPE) does not bestow extra rights upon employees with the effect of enhancing their employment position. The Court stated that TUPE does no more than preserve existing employment rights.

Pharmaceutical giant Merck has settled litigation in the United States in relation to its arthritis treatment Vioxx for US$4.85 billion (£2.42 billion). Merck had removed Vioxx from the market on the 30th September 2004 after a study found that it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The deal settles around 44,000 US claims. Had Merck not settled the litigation, it could have ultimately been facing an overall payout of US$30 billion.

The amount agreed of US$4.85 billion represents around 9-12 months profits for Merck. According to the company's chief executive, Richard Clark, the settlement allows the company to resolve the financial uncertainties that have been hanging over the company.

Nevertheless, the settlement does not apply to British lawsuits, only to US claimants. Approximately 400,000 people were prescribed Vioxx in the UK and about 300 claims have been launched by British families so far.

Whilst Nationwide Building Society found that house prices increased in October, they sounded a note of caution in their recent press release. They stated that whilst some "may be tempted to interpret October’s numbers as a sign that house prices are immune to deteriorating affordability and tightening credit conditions, such a conclusion would be misguided. Most leading indicators of housing market activity are continuing to weaken. Surveyors are reporting the weakest levels of new buyer inquiries in many years and mortgage approvals are falling from recent highs amid weaker demand and tighter lending criteria for riskier borrowers. Slowing demand, however, will not have an immediate impact on prices if homeowners are in no rush to sell. New instructions to sell have in fact been falling since May, when there had been a temporary surge of property onto the market. Different factors could be driving the low level of instructions, including a reluctance to trade up amid current uncertainties and the fact that low unemployment is limiting the number of forced sales. The overall result is that the stock of unsold homes is still relatively low, and this is providing some residual support to prices. The underlying dynamics of the market, however, are clearly not as strong as this time last year."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently held in the case of Homeserve v Dixon (2007) that when employers write to employees inviting them to a disciplinary meeting as per the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures, there is no requirement for the employer to expressly state in the letter that they are contemplating dismissal. The EAT ruled that potential dismissal was implied in such letters by virtue of the fact that the employee is being formally invited to a disciplinary hearing.

House prices fell by 0.6% in September 2007 according to Halifax. The credit squeeze, the rise in interest rates, and the introduction of Home Information Packs are likely to be contributory factors behind the fall.

The Defence Secretary recently announced changes to the way personnel within the armed forces will be compensated when injured in the course of their service. Instead of just compensating them for the 3 most serious injuries arising out of a single incident as is presently the case, they will now be compensated for all injuries arising out of it. The changes moreover are to be backdated. Nevertheless, the cap of £285,000 on the level of compensation awarded remains and this has led to enormous injustices. With respect to the recent high profile case of Ben Parkinson, for example, who was blown up in Afganistan, despite being left paralysed, losing both his legs, and suffering a blast injury to his brain, he was awarded just £152,150 under the old rules which completely ignored 34 of his other injuries. However, following the rule changes, he will now receive the full £285,000. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if Ben Parkinson had received the same injuries in a UK civilian road traffic accident for which he was not at fault, he would have received far more more compensation. Moreover, the £285,000 in compensation he will now receive is in distinct contrast to the £484,000 of compensation an RAF typist is reported in the press to have received for a repetitive strain injury to their thumb.

Law Society President Kevin Martin has welcomed the Civil Justice Council's call not to increase the £1,000.00 small claims limit for personal injury cases. He said that "such a rise would mean many people..[would]..not be able to seek redress because the case is too complicated and costs are not recoverable." Mr Martin also added that the focus should instead be "on simplifying the system."