This overturned a House of Lords Ruling that found as plaques are asymptomatic and, therefore, cannot be compensated for. Axa, Aviva, RSA and Zurich had subsequently attempted to get this revoked so that parity could be restored with England and Wales.

However, in a lengthy judgement, although Lord Emslie decided certain issues in favour of the insurers, he rejected the challenge in its three main arguments.

While expressing some sympathy for their position, he dismissed the application on a number of grounds. He said the petitioners (as insurers) are not actually parties to any affected court proceedings and that the Act does not relevantly interfere with pending actions anyway and that the new legislation can in any event be justified on what the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourge terms “compelling grounds on the general interest”.

Lord Emslie said “there is clearly room for” differences of opinion as to whether the Parliament was right to legislate in the way it did, and it remains to be seen whether the 2009 Act will prove to have adverse legal or political consequenses in years to come”.

But he also said he does not accept theat the insurers’ complaints come anywhere near the standard of “irrationally” needed to onvalidate and Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Last year the Association of British Insurers (ABI) director of general insuance and health, said The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill overlooked a fundamental legal principle that comensation is paid where there are physical symptoms. He added the ruling could have “profound and unintended consequences beyond pleural plaques”.

Following the decision on 8 January 2010 the ABI expressed its dissapointment, and said it was considering an appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of Fair Trading {OFT} had no jurisdiction in deciding whether the level of bank charges were fair or not.

It is felt that the ruling has been influenced by political considerations as it has saved the Banks from paying out billions of pounds in compensation to consumers.

It is also thought that the threat to the ending of free current account banking could have influenced the decision.

For over 2 years a large number of cases have been placed on hold by the courts,Financial Services Authority,and the Financial Ombudsman Service {FOS},pending this ruling.

It is expected that the banks will now write to millions of customers rejecting previously lodged complaints.The only recourse for customers would then be to write to the FOS,although they are likely to reject complaints and there may be a lengthy delay in a customer receiving a response due to the backlog of existing appeals to be dealt with.

The only real hope is that the OFT appeal the ruling to the European Court,although this in itself would be a further lengthy process.

It is believed by the OFT that the banks have been making £2.6 billion per year from penalty charges.

Unfair dismissal

Redundancy pay

Discrimination

Dismissal for union/employee representative or pension trustee reasons

Dismissal for health and safety reasons

Dismissal for making a protected disclosure

Guarantee Pay

Contract claims in a tribunal

Limit on week’s pay = £350 (where applicable) (a)

(a)     The Secretary of State will increase these figures annually in line with the retail prices index

(b)    (b) Applies to dismissals where the effective date of termination fell on or after 1 February 2009

(c)     Applies to dismissals where the ‘relevant date’ fell on or after 1 February 2009