CORRECTION!

In the last blog (12 August) I quoted from the website of Berrymans Lace Mawer (solicitors acting on behalf of Oxford Brookes Uni, one of the defendants in Steve's damages claim).  Steve has just pointed out to me that I got it wrong!  


What they actually say in relation to industrial disease cases is that given the potential for "tail" claims following on from the original claim,  "it is often inadvisable to consider an 'economic settlement' in isolation, without taking into account the workplace and the potential for similar claims." 


That sheds a very different light on the matter.......It looks like they might fight the case all the way and press for the minimum payout if found guilty, for fear that others exposed to asbestos dust at the same time will follow suit if Steve's claim is successful.  I imagine that they will make the most of the fact that, up to now, Steve has not experienced a huge amount of pain, loss of amenity or physical suffering as a result of his cancer, whilst playing down the fact that this will inevitably happen to him at some point in the future, ignoring the mental anguish that comes with that knowledge and dismissing the emotional turmoil we were plunged into in June 2009 and have had to learn to live with since then.  


Well - if they want a fight, they'll get one!  Unless of course, the case conference with our barrister next month throws up something unexpected.....


In the meantime, I will order a stronger pair of specs and brush up on my proof-reading skills......