Report comment

There would seem to be no rational reason for distinguishing between NIHl and any other kind of personal injury attributable to routine (i.e. regular and persistent) environmental conditions. We can therefore assume that this is likely to be extended to other types of such claims. Since the fixed costs are unlikely to meet the real costs, if not today then tomorrow, isn't it time to consider overtly the merits (and demerits) of moving to no costs recoverable win or lose, instead of getting there by stealth?