UK Legal Latest: Key cases and updates from the Eversheds Sutherland Corporate Claims Team

Liability:

Alternative route for workplace injury claims against public sector/state employers 

• Liability arising from employers’ negligence
• Time-barred or impossible claims where negligence cannot be established may be valid.

In Wetherell v Student Loans Company Ltd, an employee claimed that he developed tinnitus after using a defective headset at work. Normally, since the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, claimants cannot simply rely on breach of health and safety regulations to claim damages. They usually need to prove negligence. However, because the employer was treated as part of the state, the claimant was allowed to rely directly on an EU health and safety directive as an alternative route to compensation.

This is relevant where you are dealing with workplace injury claims involving public bodies, quasi-public bodies, or organisations performing state functions. It may give claimants a route around the usual post-ERRA position where breach of statutory duty is no longer enough on its own. For defendant work, it is a reminder to check the identity/status of the employer early and to consider whether direct reliance on retained EU law or EU-derived duties could be pleaded.

Wetherell v Student Loans Co Ltd

Valuation of services dependency under section 3 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

• Whether adult children can recover substantial dependency for loss of parental services.
• Whether professional deputyship fees and Court of Protection costs are recoverable as part of a dependency claim.

The fatal accident case in Burgess v Sikorski concerned adult children claiming for the loss of the practical help and support their mother would have provided if she had not died. The court accepted that adult children can, in appropriate cases, recover substantial sums for lost services. It also accepted that, where a dependant lacks capacity, professional deputyship and Court of Protection-type costs may be recoverable as part of the dependency claim.

This is important for valuing fatal accident claims, particularly where dependants are adults or vulnerable/protected parties. It shows that services dependency is not limited to minor children or obvious domestic care, and that claims can be high value where the deceased provided meaningful practical support. For corporate claims and insurer-led PI work, it highlights the need to scrutinise dependency evidence carefully, obtain proper schedules and witness evidence, and consider whether claimed professional management costs genuinely flow from the death.

Burgess v Sikorski

High threshold for appellate interference with case management decisions in disease litigation

• Guidance on trial length estimation in complex asbestos/product liability cases.
• Costs management is now being applied in asbestos disease claims.
• Adequate time must be allowed for presentation and analysis of complex disease evidence.

In Monk v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd, asbestos-related product liability claims were brought by families of workers who had died from mesothelioma. The claims were against manufacturers of asbestos insulation board because employer’s liability insurance could not be found. The main point was procedural: the court stressed that judges have a wide discretion when managing complex litigation, including decisions about trial length, sequencing and whether issues such as liability and quantum should be heard together or separately.

This is useful in complex disease, historic exposure and product liability claims where evidence can be highly technical and document-heavy. It reinforces that case management decisions are difficult to overturn, so parties need to make strong, practical submissions at the directions stage about trial length, expert evidence, costs management and whether quantum should be split off. For defendant corporate claims, it is also a reminder that claimants may pursue manufacturers where the employer route is unavailable.

Monk v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd

Serious procedural irregularity requires much more than disagreement with the trial judge’s factual findings.

• Judgments should not be picked over as if they were statutes or contracts.
• Appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with detailed factual findings in complex, expert-heavy litigation.
• Pleading points should be taken at trial; raising them for the first time on appeal is unlikely to succeed.

In Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd, the litigation arose from the collapse of a dam in Brazil, causing deaths, injuries and widespread environmental damage. The defendants sought permission to appeal parts of the trial judge’s findings, arguing that there had been serious procedural irregularity and errors in the way the judge dealt with complex factual and expert evidence. The Court of Appeal made clear that disagreement with a judge’s conclusions is not enough. A judgment will not be treated like a contract or statute to be picked apart line by line, and appellate courts will usually be slow to interfere with detailed factual findings made after a major trial.

This is relevant to large-scale corporate claims, group litigation, environmental damage claims and complex personal injury litigation involving expert evidence. It underlines the importance of getting pleadings, evidence, expert challenges and procedural objections right at trial, rather than trying to rescue points on appeal. For defendant work, it is a reminder that appeal prospects should be assessed realistically and that trial strategy must focus on building a complete evidential record before judgment.

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK ) Ltd

Updates

Court and Tribunal fees set to increase from 13 July 2026

170 fees will increase by 2.6% in line with inflation, with 27 fees increasing by 34%. Key fee increases include those made under Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 and Magistrate Court Fees Order 2008.

See the full list:

Court and tribunal fees: updates from July 2026 - GOV.UK