This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15264262

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Supreme Court Court backs asbestos compensation law Supreme Court backs asbestos compensation law
(40 minutes later)
Insurance companies have failed in a legal bid to scrap the right of people in Scotland to claim damages for an asbestos-related condition.Insurance companies have failed in a legal bid to scrap the right of people in Scotland to claim damages for an asbestos-related condition.
The UK Supreme Court dismissed their case, upholding the right of people with pleural plaques to claim compensation. The UK Supreme Court dismissed their case, a decision which will enable people with pleural plaques to claim compensation.
Insurers earlier lost a bid to overturn the laws at the Court of Session. Insurers previously failed to overturn the laws at the Court of Session.
Most Scots affected by pleural plaques previously worked in heavy industry, such as shipbuilding. Most Scots affected by pleural plaques had worked in heavy industry, such as shipbuilding.
The House of Lords ruled five years ago that victims could not claim compensation, but the Scottish government disagreed. MSPs passed the Damages Act in 2009, allowing claims to be made - with the likely cost estimated at between £7m and £9m.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill welcomed the Supreme Court ruling as a "triumph for progressive politics".
Pleural plaques are not themselves a disease and have no symptoms, but the thickening of lung membranes is an indicator of past exposure to asbestos.Pleural plaques are not themselves a disease and have no symptoms, but the thickening of lung membranes is an indicator of past exposure to asbestos.
Scottish ministers argued pleural plaques could give rise to more serious conditions, like lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis.
This is a highly significant judgement.This is a highly significant judgement.
The UK Supreme Court has said the judgement of the Scottish Parliament as an elected body about what constituted the public interest, should be respected.The UK Supreme Court has said the judgement of the Scottish Parliament as an elected body about what constituted the public interest, should be respected.
Although pleural plaques are not in themselves a disease, and have no symptoms, they indicate previous exposure to asbestos.Although pleural plaques are not in themselves a disease, and have no symptoms, they indicate previous exposure to asbestos.
Victims say it causes them great distress and concern they may develop a more serious condition. Victims say it causes them great distress and concern that they may develop a more serious condition.
Insurance companies say they should not have to pay compensation for something which has not, and may not, happen.Insurance companies say they should not have to pay compensation for something which has not, and may not, happen.
Because of this, the House of Lords ruled five years ago that victims could not claim compensation. But insurance firms vigorously attacked the legislation, alleging it infringed on human rights laws.
However, the Scottish government disagreed and passed the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions)(Scotland) Act in 2009.
Ministers argued pleural plaques could give rise to more serious conditions, like lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis.
It allows claims to be made with the likely cost estimated at between £7m and £9m.
But insurance firms have vigorously attacked the legislation, alleging it infringes against human rights laws.
The industry argued that it broke European Convention on Human Rights provisions on property rights and constitutes unreasonable legal interference.The industry argued that it broke European Convention on Human Rights provisions on property rights and constitutes unreasonable legal interference.
But Supreme Court justices in London dismissed an appeal by several insurance companies - including AXA - against an April decision by Court of Session judges in Scotland, who rejected argument that the legislation was unlawful.But Supreme Court justices in London dismissed an appeal by several insurance companies - including AXA - against an April decision by Court of Session judges in Scotland, who rejected argument that the legislation was unlawful.
The Supreme Court ruled that it could not be said that the, "judgment of the Scottish Parliament was without reasonable foundation". The Supreme Court ruled that it could not be said that the "judgment of the Scottish Parliament was without reasonable foundation".
Mr MacAskill said: "I warmly welcome this significant decision, not least for the sake of people with pleural plaques and all those who campaigned so vigorously to help them.
"We firmly believe that people with this condition should be able to raise a claim for damages, and we are delighted that this decision has gone in their favour - a result that will surely bring them some comfort."
The justice secretary added: "It is our sincere hope that the insurers will now reflect carefully on the decisions reached by the Scottish Parliament, by both the Outer and Inner Houses of Scotland's Court of Session, and now by the UK's Supreme Court and settle those claims that have been stalled for so long."
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray, added: "This is tremendous news for all those in Scotland who have had to suffer the trauma of being told they have pleural plaques and will now, after two and a half years of delay, be able to pursue the damages they are entitled to."