Database

The normal healthy development of infants is defined by this standard. Deviation could instigate investigations of maltreatment but the validity of such a trigger is likely to be low. Evidence from: M de Onis et al. Acta Paediatrica (2006) Vol. 95 supplement 450 “WHO Child Growth Standard” Investigations of childcare standards can lead to prolonged distress. If triggered solely by deviation form median growth there is a high risk of unnecessary distress. Further detail: 6#5-6 12

HSC have implemented the requirement to set reduced levels of protection when work with asbestos is described as sporadic. Evidence from: HSC/06/55 July 2006. “A comparison of the risks from different materials containing asbestos” At the 9 May meeting, the Commission agreed that including in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) a peak exposure level of 0.6 fibres per cm³ in the air measured over a ten minute period would provide a useful determinant of when exposure might be considered to be sporadic and of low intensity. Exactly how this ties in with the Compensation Act 2006 remains to be seen. It is highly likely that claims will be made when known exposures are below the level described as sporadic. Would they be in breach or not? Further detail: 6#5-6 11  

In hamsters, co-exposure to crocidolite and one strain of SV40 virus had the effect of amplifying the risk of mesothelioma from asbestos. SV40 has not been conclusively shown to be a cause of mesothelioma in humans, and in our view, is unlikely to be. Evidence from: B Kroczynska et al. PNAS (2006) Vol.103#38 p 14128 – 14133 “Crocidolite asbestos and SV40 are cocarcinogens in human mesothelial cells and in causing mesothelioma in hamsters” The joint potency of virus and asbestos was higher in hamsters. Given joint and several liability for asbestos exposure it seems unlikely anyone would bring SV40 into play. Further detail: 6#5-6 10

The guidance sets out regulatory standards and advice for non-commercial repair work on brake and clutch linings. Although the regulations are US regulations they could be seen as representing a reasonable view. Evidence from: USEPA Aug 2006 “Current Best Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure Among Brake and Clutch Repair Workers” Further detail: 6#5-6 9

The effect of the Barker judgement was reversed within a matter of weeks. This Bill provides that joint and several liability applies to these kinds of claims. Evidence from: Hansard: Amendments agreed 19th July 2006. “Compensation Bill” The absolute language used in this bill is intended to give rise to a guarantee of compensation for mesothelioma cases. However the language used is absurd and will give rise to uncertainties. Included is the possibility that exposure to asbestos the day before a diagnosis of mesothelioma is made, could be found responsible for the disease. There are other scenarios where the Act will give offence against natural justice. There is growing concern that contribution to risk should be measured in a more rational way. The real tests will come when an administrator or public body has a duty to minimise exposure to past liabilities. Further detail: 6#5-6 8  

The case set a short-lived precedent that, for this very limited set of mesothelioma claimants, duty holders should compensate according the degree of risk. Evidence from: Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] UKHL 20 The precedent was active until the Compensation Act 2006, which removed the possibility of compensation being reduced by a lack of insurance for any given period of exposure. However, Barker remains the leading precedent in those jurisdictions which adopt UK common law but which have their own regulatory system and have not adopted the Compensation Act 2006. Further challenges to the legal fiction behind Fairchild are very likely. Further detail: 6#5-6 7