Pleural plaques law contrary to human rights?
The Daily Telegraph for 9 November 2008 reported that insurers plan to challenge the consistency of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights.
It appears that the Association of British Insurers will argue that the Bill is not compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair hearing) or Article 1 of the First Protocol (property rights). But Telegraph correspondent Joshua Rozenberg is surely right to question the reasoning:
“Since the Bill would merely restore the law in Scotland to what it had been before the law lords’ ruling — and still is, on a strict view of precedent — it is difficult to argue that the insurers are being deprived of a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Similarly, it does not seem that being required to pay claims in Scotland that they would not have to meet in England and Wales is denying these companies the “peaceful enjoyment” of their possessions. It might just be possible to argue that it is not "in the public interest" to deprive them of their possessions — another requirement of Article 1, Protocol 1 — but this, too, seems a little far-fetched.”