Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
The hon. Gentleman should not talk in terms of conspiracy theories. That always worries me. Let us consider the position of Miss Barker. Her case could have been settled on the Fairchild basis of joint and several liability. There was no reason not to do that. However, the Government decided to make it a test case, take it all the way to the highest court in the land—the House of Lords—and see what the judgment would be. Given the Under-Secretary’s position today that Fairchild is correct and the right law for our country, it is odd to have gone all the way to the House of Lords, arguing something completely different, barely six weeks ago.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 449 c52
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Codes of practice Courts Damages Advertising Coal Asbestos Legal profession Employment Liability Exemptions Functions Mining Negligence Mesothelioma Standards Regulation Trade unions Victims Industrial injuries disablement benefit Claims management services Mesothelioma Compensation Board
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:07:15 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337990
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337990
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337990