Supreme Court goes against insurers in Trigger litigation ruling

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • This reads more like a press release from Devereux Chambers than a balanced piece of journalism. As for the suggestion that Colin Wynter (admirable as he is) single-handely drove forward the litigation, the truth is slightly more prosaic. CW was just one of a number of leaders on the so-called "Employers'" side, and was not 'name-checked' in any of the Supreme Court judgments, unlike Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC (one of 3 silks from 4 New Square who appeared on the appeals in the Supreme Court) and Michael Beloff QC. Other than Beloff and Stuart-Smith, Colin Edelman QC was the only other advocate name-checked by their lordships.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The only sensible decision the Court could make

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • But who leaked the outcome to The Independent last week in contempt of the Supreme Court?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Colin Wynter cannot be blamed for the way that The Lawyer chose to report this. He was not on the "Employers" side. He acted for the Claimant side (Durham, Edwards and Fleming) i.e. the families of the men that died an unimaginably painful death due to their employers' negligence in exposing them to asbestos. They don't care whether CW was "name-checked" but they and the many thousands that will benefit from this judgement will be grateful to him and the rest of the legal teams that achieved this victory.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (4)