T:0247 665 8274
David has successfully handled cases in the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Supreme Court. He has advised a wide range of clients including major insurers, the ABI, the NHS and Government Departments. He is the current head of the FOIL Disease Sector Focus team, and has served on the Court of Appeal Users Committee. He was named Defendant Lawyer of the year in 2013 and was shortlisted in 2008.
Notable cases include Rothwell v Chemical Insulations - the pleural plaques decision which saved insurers an estimated £1.4 billion. He acted for the ABI in their Supreme Court intervention in Zurich v IEG and advised major insurers on the successful Supreme Court challenge to the Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill. David also advised the ABI and major insurers on the Mesothelioma Act and 2013 Mesothelioma Consultation and has other successful Court of Appeal decisions on stress at work and European Convention issues.
Latest Insights by David Pugh
Client Alerts 18/04/2019
Equitas v MMI and Allocating Claims for Mesothelioma 2019 EWCA Civ 718. 17.4.2019
Two issues dominate current asbestos claims - new treatments for mesothelioma and uncertainty about breach of duty.
Welcome to the latest edition of disease aware. We’ve addressed some subjects in greater detail than normal. We hope that you enjoy it.
Keoghs have successfully secured a commitment from the Government for a key amendment to the Companies Act 2006. This will preserve insurers’ rights to pursue contributions in legacy claims – especially mesothelioma.
Client Alerts 09/04/2018
Dryden & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc  UKSC 18 The Supreme Court has decided that mere sensitisation to an allergen is an injury for which damages can be recovered. The reasoning employed to reach that view is difficult to follow. Because of this the full implications are unclear. The one certainty is that insurers can expect to face other claims for sensitisation – and the damages may not be modest.
Client Alerts 22/02/2018
The Court of Appeal has ruled on the Bussey case. The claimant has succeeded in part but the essential question has become even less clear. In what circumstances will an employer be in breach of duty for lower level exposures?