“1. When did the fire start and how did it spread? 2. What part of the site in addition to the Woodyard Building was affected by the fire? 3. What was the quantity of recycled wood in the Woodyard Building and any other part of the site affected by the fire when the fire started? 4. What was the composition of such recycled wood when the fire started? 5. What other materials were in the Woodyard Building and any other part of the site affected by the fire when the fire started? 6. For how long did the fire burn/smoulder? 7. When did the recycled wood/other materials burn in the fire? 8. What was the heat output of the fire over time? 9. What were the meteorological conditions during the fire? 10. What was the geographical spread of the smoke plume during the various stages of the fire? 11. What was the chemical composition and concentration of the smoke, in the geographical area in which exposure is alleged, during the various stages of the fire? 12. What air quality or equivalent standards apply to exposure to the smoke? 13. What, if any, air quality or equivalent standards apply to short term exposure to the smoke? 14. What is the relevance of such air quality or equivalent standards that exist to short term exposure? 15. Does Rylands v Fletcher apply? 16. What are the findings from the 40 test cases and how should those findings apply to the issues in the individual cases, including: (i) the extent of the Claimants’ smoke exposure. (ii) the nature of any injury suffered by the Claimants. (iii) the diagnostic criteria for any such injury. (iv) the duration of symptoms attributable to any injury suffered by the Claimants. (v) the cause of any such injury. (vi) whether such injury was foreseeable. (vii) whether such injury was actionable in law. (viii) the relevance of pre-existing medical conditions. (ix) the relevance of other environmental factors such as cigarette smoke. (x) Damages (if any)” (i) the extent of the Claimants’ smoke exposure. (ii) the nature of any injury suffered by the Claimants. (iii) the diagnostic criteria for any such injury. (iv) the duration of symptoms attributable to any injury suffered by the Claimants. (v) the cause of any such injury. (vi) whether such injury was foreseeable. (vii) whether such injury was actionable in law. (viii) the relevance of pre-existing medical conditions. (ix) the relevance of other environmental factors such as cigarette smoke.
“Bunker 1 I estimate 200-250 tonnes a.t.o.f. [at time of fire] (i.e.
“I returned to the site on Saturday 11th and Sunday12th June 2011 . During these days, I walked around and liaised with demolition contractors and the fire brigade. On a number of occasions I was inside the woodyard building. I was able to see clearly and did not experience any breathing difficulties. The fire fighters were not wearing any breathing apparatus as we walked around the site or were inside the woodyard building … During the remaining period of the fire, I continued to be on site during my normal working hours. By approximately Monday, the smoke from the fire had decreased significantly and from then onwards, the smoke gradually decreased.”
“The mid-heights of the slots were about 0.5m above the base of the bunkers and the openings measured approximately 25m x 1m each side, giving an area of 50m² per bunker. On this basis, the mass consumption rate is predicted to have been about 4.25 kg/s per bunker. However, this ignores the open top through which air would have entered and products would have escaped, both of which would increase the burning rate. For this exercise I have estimated that the burning rate during stage 2 would have been about 6 kg/s per bunker, or 33 kg/s overall.”
“1.9.2 Fireplace emissions, caused mainly incomplete combustion, include particulate matter, mainly PM 10s … significant quantities of unburnt combustibles are produced because fireplaces are inefficient combustion devices, with high uncontrolled excess air rates and without any sort of secondary combustion. The latter is especially important in wood burning because of its high volatile matter content, typically 80% by dry weight. … Fireplace emissions are highly variable and are a function of many wood characteristics and operating practices. In general, conditions which promote a fast burn rate and a higher flame intensity enhance secondary combustion and thereby lower emissions. Conversely, higher emissions will result from a slow burn rate and a lower flame intensity. Such generalisations apply particularly to the earlier stages of the burning cycle, when significant quantities of combustible volatile matter are being driven out of the wood. Later in the burning cycle, when all volatile matter has been driven out of the wood, the charcoal that remains burns with relatively few emissions.”
“The large variability in emission rates for a given appliance is due to a number of factors including stove design, wood moisture content and burn rate … In conventional stoves, increasing burn rate increases combustion temperatures and efficiencies, but in catalytic and non-catalytic devices the higher burn rates actually decrease combustion efficiency by decreasing the times in the secondary combustion rate … Compared to wood stoves, we know little about fireplace emissions. Here we distinguish fireplaces from conventional fireplace inserts. Inserts are a home-heating device with emissions similar to conventional wood stoves. Standard open fireplaces can be a net home cooling device because of the large amounts of air they draw from outside during maximum burn rates. In general, conventional fireplaces emit comparable amounts of particulate matter and less carbon monoxide per kg wood burned compared to conventional wood stoves. However, fireplaces usually operate at higher wood burn rates and for shorter time periods than most wood heating devices.”
“Smaller biomass boilers are generally not fitted with any pollution abatement devises as these are generally not required to meet current CAA requirements for emissions. However, most larger new automatic boilers are fitted with some form of flue gas cleaning device to remove particle (dust) from the flue gas before release to the atmosphere.”
“The fire was efficient in stage 3. It had plenty of oxygen in stage 3. My emission factors were designed for stage 3. Q. It was reverse smoulder. That's not efficient oxygen, is it? 119. A. I think you will find it was quite efficient. 120. Q. You can't say that stage 3 was an efficient burn, can you? 121. A. It's rather like a coke brazier. 122. Q. The fire is burning back on itself. That's reverse smouldering, isn't it? It's inefficient. 123. A. The oxidation is happening at the surface. The heat is penetrating downwards. As the top fuel burns away, the fuel below comes alight. 124. Q. It's only the top – 125. A. If you measure the carbon monoxide from a coke brazier, you will find there is some, but the burning combustion efficiency is quite effective. It's like the barbecue after the main thing is alight. It's a coke brazier.”
“The fire, I think, is -- if you start at the top of the page, that fireplaces are primarily used for aesthetic effects and secondarily as supplemental heating. The fire is designed to be pretty, to show a nice red flame. The red flames in themselves produce carbon black. The redness of the flame is in fact carbon black glowing in the flame. So the fire is designed to produce soot which burns in the flame. The volatiles, which contain the irritant substances, will burn preferentially in the flame to the carbon. So as I see it, a nice red flame will produce black soot, but probably low volatile contents, and that's one part of it. The volatile material escaping from the fire will depend obviously on the way that the fire is arranged. But to my mind, the black soot from the open fire is contributed by the loss of heat to the outside environment, reducing the -- this is radiation loss from the visible fire, and effectively quenching the red flames. This is the soot in the basic wood fire chimney.”
“If ash and dust were produced and transported from the fireground, the most likely time would have been during the intense combustion that occurred during stage 2.”
“The larger volume of fly ash estimated above released during stage 2 of the fire would therefore have formed an average covering over this area of less than about 0.35 microns, i.e. about one third of one thousandth of one millimetre.”
“the dose determines the poison”
“On the basis of what is known about the Sonae fire, the photographic evidence of smoke from the fire, modelling of the fallout of pollutants generated by the fire and the topography of the area, it is more probable than not that many thousands of people would have been affected by the pollutant emissions.”
“The exposure to individuals to the fire effluent in the zone outside the immediate fire zone (zone 2) would be expected to be of most concern to public health … The major immediate hazard to public health in zone 2 is therefore, expected to be exposure to irritants and particulates generated in the effluent. Low concentrations of the irritant gases may cause significant irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, which may affect a large number of people who are not directly exposed to the fire plume. The adverse effects resulting from exposure to these irritants are likely to be completely resolved following removal from the exposure, with no long term sequelae. However, the generation of more complex products such as PAHs, dioxins, dibenzofurans and particulate matter are of concern, but are likely to present a significantly greater hazard from long term or repeated exposure than following a large single acute exposure.”
“While we recognise the possibility that there is no threshold of the health effects of pollutants, nonetheless we consider that AQI can be developed that provides useful information on the possible effects on health at different pollutant levels in the short-term, and identifies individuals likely to be most susceptible. … The health response to increases in outdoor air pollution varies between individuals and sub-groups of the population … Individual susceptibility may affect the level at which health effects are noticed and the rate of increase in symptoms as air concentrations increase.”
“Short-term effects of air pollution on health Air pollution has a range of effects on health. However, air pollution in the UK does not rise to levels at which people need to make major changes to their habits to avoid exposure; nobody need fear going outdoors. Adults and children with lung or heart conditions. It is well known that, when levels of air pollutants rise, adults suffering from heart conditions, and adults and children with lung conditions, are at increased risk of becoming ill and needing treatment. Only a minority of those who suffer from these conditions are likely to be affected and it is not possible to predict in advance who will be affected … Older people are more likely to suffer from heart and lung conditions than young people and so it makes good sense for them to be aware of current air pollution concerns. General Population At very high levels of air pollution, some people may experience a sore or dry throat, sore eyes or, in some cases, a tickly cough – even healthy individuals … [page 90] … There has been very little work conducted on timescales of less than 24 hours and most knowledge of the acute effects upon health is based on day-to-day changes in air pollutant concentrations. The acute effects of particle exposure include increases in hospital admissions and premature death of the old and sick due to diseases of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. The evidence is that both PM2.5s and PM 10s cause additional hospital admissions and deaths on high pollution days. There are also less severe effects of short-term particle exposure during pollution episodes, such as worsening of asthma symptoms and even a general feeling of being unwell leading to a lower level of activity … [page 114]”
“On the basis of the ‘best estimate’ winds the following are dates and approximate times on which the wind would have been blowing from the Sonae factory towards at least part of the residential area or very close to it: 9th June: 22:45 – midnight 10th June: 00:00 – 08:30 12th June: 04:00 – midnight 13th June: 03:00 – 05:00 14th June: 06:45 – 09:15 and 14:30 – 20:30 15th June: 01:00 – 13:30 16th June: 02:00 – 05:15 17th June: most of the day 18th June: 00:00 – 01:15 20th June: 05:45 – 07:30 21st June: 00:00 – 01:45 22nd June: 00:00 – 06:00 24th June: 19:30 – midnight 25th June: 00:00 – 05:30 26th June: 01:00 – midnight 27th June: 00:00 – 11:00 These are similar to the findings in our reports. … There were 6 days on which winds did not blow from the Sonae factory towards any residential area at any time. These were 11th, 19th, 23rd, 28th, 29th and 30th. There was only one day, the 12th, during which winds of any strength were blowing directly from the Sonae factory towards residential areas for an extended period of time.”
“On my understanding of its reasoning, the House of Lords in Rothwell did not seek to reinterpret its earlier decision in Cartledge, although – as has been pointed out in the parties’ written submissions – their Lordships’ individual formulations of the legal test varied slightly. For Lord Hoffmann the test (in tort claims generally) involved the “abstract concept of being worse off, physically or economically, so that compensation is an appropriate remedy” (at 289D). For Lord Hope, the test was whether there was “real damage, as distinct from damage which is purely minimal” (at 297E). For Lord Rodger, the test was “material damage” (at 311F). It might be argued that some of the formulations tend to circularity. What may be more valuable is to consider how the test was applied to the facts of both Cartledge and Rothwell itself.”
“I can now sum up my view in this way. The appellant never suffered dermatitis before he was exposed during his employment by the respondents to conditions liable to cause that disease. His original symptom – an outbreak on the back of his hand – is admittedly typical of industrial dermatitis … In my opinion, when a man who has not previously suffered from a disease contracts that disease after being subjected to conditions likely to cause it, and when he shows that it starts in a way typical of disease caused in such conditions, he establishes a prima facie presumption that his disease was caused by those conditions. That presumption could be displaced …”
“In my judgment, in this very difficult case the judge directed himself correctly as a matter of law. He was entitled to consider the evidence he had been given by the Claimant extremely carefully, directing himself about the dangers of witnesses who may seem to be plausible but in fact are telling a pack of lies, and directing himself to consider very carefully the evidence given on behalf of the defendant. He formed the view that he could not be satisfied that these witnesses were telling a pack of lies. He was very impressed by their evidence, and he concluded, when he had to balance the evidence of each side, that there must be - although he accepted fully that he could not say what it was – something that was not accurate in Mr Child’s evidence in that particular case. … In my judgment, if we dismiss this appeal in this case we are not opening the door to a whole lot of dishonest claimants to recover just because there may be cases in which the honesty and force of a claimant’s evidence impresses a trial judge in the way the evidence of these claimants did on this particular occasion. In very many cases the evidence of a witness like Mr Childs may well be sufficient to tip the balance strongly in the defendant’s favour.”
“There is no rule of law or practice in such a situation requiring the judge to favour or accept the evidence of the expert or the evidence of a witness of fact. The judge must consider whether he can reconcile the evidence of the expert witness with that of the witness of fact. If he cannot do so, he must consider whether there may be an explanation for the conflict of evidence or for a possible error by either witness, and in the light of all the circumstances make a considered choice which evidence to accept. The circumstances may be such as to require the judge to reach only one conclusion.”
“Well, it depends upon how much irritant there is. If there is a significant irritant, then there will be an [immediate] irritant response. If there is more irritant, then it will turn into an inflammatory response, which is a pathological step change. Essentially, your Lordship, an inflammatory response is a final common pathway that the body has in relation to potentially injurious incidents, one of which is an irritant up the nose.”
“Q. So given the understanding, perhaps with the benefit of Mr Redfern's description of the fire, of what the claimants you examined experienced, would you have expected any of them, once the irritant was removed, to have spent as much as a week or two weeks or three weeks symptomatically? A. I would say on the balance of probability, not. If the alleged exposure was for a period of a few days -- a period of a few weeks, then it's conceivable that there has been inflammatory change in the nose during that time because the exposure has been continuing. Q. So are you contemplating a consistent level of concentration of the irritant? A. The injurious agent would have to be present in the air in sufficient and significant dose for me to endorse that concept.”
“MR JUSTICE JAY: But I think what is being put is each time you go in there will be a sub-threshold exposure, but it will happen often enough and in sufficient temporal proximity. In other words it's ongoing, but ebbing and flowing always below sub-threshold. There will come a point at which, bang, you start to get symptoms, not because you're sensitised, but because there's a sort of build-up. I just want to know what your reaction is to that. A. My reaction is, on the balance of probability, I wouldn't expect that. There would have to be sufficient exposure to maintain a continued inflammatory reaction.”
“If the claimant has not been exposed as alleged then any symptoms that they report cannot be arising as a result of the alleged index incident. On this basis they will be unrelated to it and arising as a result of other mechanisms.”
“Well, we talked about irritant contact dermatitis, and irritants you can divide into absolute irritants and relative irritants. Absolute irritants will cause damage to the skin with one or two exposures. So, for example, hydrofluoric acid, if you pour that on your skin, is going to drill a hole in your skin. That's an absolute irritant, whereas relative irritants work by damaging the lipid cell surface membranes within the skin, causing damage to the integrity of the barrier function of the skin cumulatively over a period of time. So irritants are anything which dries the skin, degreases the skin, chemically attacks the skin over a period of time. So in practice exposure to irritants usually requires months or years of repeated exposure to damage the barrier level of the skin to cause problems, to break through the threshold of the actual barrier function of the skin to actually cause dermatitis. Now, most dermatitis will occur from cumulative damage unless that individual has had repeated exposure over a period of time just beneath the threshold and then the final insult will take them through the threshold. But in practice you need months or years of repeated exposure to develop irritant dermatitis, and that irritant dermatitis has to occur on areas which are susceptible. So hands from a wear and tear point of view, or if you're talking about an airborne irritant, the first place to get affected will be the eyelids, around the eyes and on the face. Yet none of the people that we examined had problems on their eyelids. So from irritation, I think it pretty well rules that out as a possibility. If it's an airborne thing, it's got to affect the areas exposed to the skin. Airborne irritants, airborne allergens where people become allergic to chemicals, affect the skin that is exposed to the air and not on covered sites. Yet a lot of the individuals we examined had problems on covered sites as well.”
“I work on the Wirral. It's a very different area. Very refreshing to meet the good folk of Kirkby. You know, solid people, gave a proper account of themselves, pleasure to meet some of them, pleasure to meet all of them to a degree. As I say, I've never been to Rodney Street before. It was a life changing experience in many ways, but certainly it was a good gig in terms of dealing with patients. This was a very straightforward experience. Q. I wasn't asking about your pleasure. A. I do apologise. Q. I was asking how you found the group as far as the presentation of their conditions. A. It made me wish I worked in Kirkby and had much more straightforward people to deal with than on the Wirral. But I hope nobody has written that down. But they're very straightforward people. They struck me as no side to them, gave an account that I found, with one exception, one minor exception, entirely straightforward. They told me a story that fitted in with their clinical signs. I hear this story half a dozen times at clinic in terms of symptomatic tear film instability. Q. Due to exposure to smoke? A. No, due to a variety -- it's a common final pathway disease. Many things can precipitate symptomatology. Q. Smoke is one of them? A. Smoke is one of them. Sunburn, for example. A particularly dry day. A particularly cold day. It doesn't take much. It's a complex mechanism. It's very, very robust. When it goes, it goes.”
“I was not aware of the fire until the following morning when I got up to get ready for work. I noticed a terrible smell of burning. When I looked out of the window, I could see that the whole area was covered with smoke. In particular, I noticed that my garden was covered in dust and ash. The smoke was extremely thick and dark and was blowing towards my house and into my estate. I cannot recall the plume being particularly high at the time of seeing it.”
“Upper Respiratory Tract Infection NOS 1/52 tired, sore throat, cough, running nose. o/e throat red nil pus chest clear advice given. Delayed script”
“I was absolutely fine before the fire, and only started to suffer these horrible symptoms after it started. As I mentioned above, I had no history of asthma at all before this, and I was not exposed to any other irritants that could have induced it, so it seems obvious that the fire was to blame. ”
“… since yesterday has had problems with chest since November, not formerly diagnosed with asthma but given a ventolin inhaler. Non smoker. Since yesterday has been coughing phlegm and struggling to clear chest. Feels SOB and has used ventolin 4 + times today. On the phone able to speak in long full sentences but sounds congested …”
“Past History Rosacea. This has been present for the last 5-6 years beginning in 2008-2009 when it was severe for 3 months. This became worse after the fire, particularly on the cheeks and around the eyes where the skin became lumpy and cracked. This seemed to be bad for about 2 months and then settled back to its pre-fire severity. … Opinion She seems to have had redding [sic] of the face which was worse than before. The rash was certainly confined to the face only. The overall impression is that of rosacea exacerbated by the fire for a period of 3 weeks, possibly longer.”
“From the first time I saw, it was black, very black. MR JUSTICE JAY: Very black, yes. A. And then over a period, it would go blackish grey, if you was looking over that way, but we didn't tend to a lot, and then it would sometimes go a bit white. That was the colours I seen when I looked. MR JUSTICE JAY: After about a week or so, was it still going black? A. No. MR JUSTICE JAY: Was it – A. It had changed colour, my Lord, after a week. It wasn't black anymore. MR JUSTICE JAY: In terms of the quantities of smoke, can you give me an idea of that? A. First few days, my Lord, was really bad. Really bad, and then it just started to settle down. Just keep -- you know, there was smoke coming from it all the time, rising, but never as serious as the first few days, in my opinion. MR JUSTICE JAY: Yes. I know it's difficult to describe, but after the first few days, just give me a picture of the quantities of smoke. A. It's very difficult to, you know -- because, as you say, it had changed colour. So it was not as though you could look over and see something black all the time. You know, you'd notice all the time, wouldn't you? But there were a change in colour. Sometimes it would go very easy and then sometimes it would flare up again and you'd see a white plume or a grey plume. But that's only if you was out looking over all the time.”
“Can you explain why these very serious symptoms are described in this witness statement, when it seems that's not your recollection of the symptoms that you have? A. It's human error, isn't it? It's a misprint on that -- that bit. I'd said -- when I've described my symptoms to the lady who was writing it down, I said my nose was congested and my chest felt heavy and I found it difficult to breathe. Q. When you were answering questions from my learned friend Mr Redfern, he asked you whether you went to your GP and you said you didn't, and the reason you wouldn't go to your GP was because you had a little cough. You wouldn't trouble a GP with a little cough. A. I don't trouble the GP with anything. Q. I haven't asked you the question yet. What you're describing in this witness statement could not fairly be described as a little cough, could it? A. I just got on with it. I've got five kids. I'm on my own looking after them. So I haven't got time to sit in the doctor's to be told: it's stress and I can't give you antibiotics.”
“Q. What I suggest, Ms Carney, is that you have no idea if any symptoms you have had since June 2011 are related to this fire, do you? A. I'm not a specialist, am I? Q. No. So you've no idea? A. No, because the doctor hasn't turned round to me and said: this is all down to the Sonae factory fire. He said it's down to stress. But in the area people have got the exact same symptoms and had the same problems. Q. So you think because other people might have symptoms that they say are caused, you say yours might be caused? A. There's got to be a link somewhere, hasn't there? Q. In fact, in 2013, when you went to that shopping centre in Kirkby, you jumped on a passing bandwagon, didn't you? A. No, I was asked a question and I answered. Q. What was the question? A. If I'd suffered anything -- any of these conditions. It was chest, any chest symptoms from the fire, and I said yes, I had. And then they said, would you like to come along and talk to us, and I said yes, because I don't want something like that in the area where my kids are. My kids have got to live here, haven't they? It's not jumping on a bandwagon. It's looking after your family, isn't it?”
“No, you asked me, when did you first become aware of something; right? And I remember seeing that and thinking -- first thing I thought, I'll be honest, is we were at risk. That fire means that we were at risk. I'd forgotten about it because no one come to the house and said you need to be screened, you could have been at risk, you might have got respiratory whatever. Q. You had forgotten about the fire? A. When I seen that I thought, oh, there's been fault with Sonae. There's a claim. Where there's claim, there's blame. And I thought: hang on a minute, my itchy skin and everything, what have I been exposed to? Q. So that was the first time you'd made a connection between your itchy skin? A. Yes. Q. I think you said that was two years later? A. Yes. …. Q. Let me ask you a narrower question. You'd forgotten about the fire; yes? That's your evidence? A. Yes. Q. You're walking through Kirkby centre. You see the unit and it says that Sonae is at fault, I think, is the phrase you used a moment ago. Had you not seen that sort of material saying Sonae is at fault, one, you probably would have forgotten about the fire still. A. I didn't forget about the fire. I'd forgotten about Sonae itself, if you know what I mean.”
“There is also -- it's not necessarily the person that's trying to tell mistruths. It may be their perception of things. So you find that if someone suffers from, say, anxiety and depression, which are quite common disorders, certainly in the rhinology field, their perception of having a stuffy nose will be much greater than someone who is happy with life. I'll quite often sit in clinic, trying to work out why they've come to see me, because my nose is generally much worse than theirs, and that is an honest opinion on that.”
“H/O; asthma. Flare up after recent Sonic factory fire. Speaking full sentences. Resp sys – b/l air entry equal. b/l scattered wheeze+. RR-18/min. Was more worse over w/e, it seems. P]- Oral steroids. Continue inhalers …”
“C/O – cough had cough for a few weeks now, has been taking OTC medication, chest seems clear. Advised to continue with meds and come back in 2 weeks if no better.”
“MR KENT: It sounds as though this is quite difficult retrospectively to diagnose. DR AUGUST: Yes. It's inspired guesswork, really. It's a hunch, what do you think is the best fit.”
“That day it was quite intense, for the first few days leading off, and then obviously towards the end of that week it petered out a bit.”
“1. Cold called on doorstep by young man regarding fire at Sonae factory in Kirkby. 2. Was asked had it affected me and although I said no, I was persuaded to give my details and answer some questions (including health questions). 3. As I had breathing difficulties (and told him so) I decided to go ahead and sign the, what I thought, the questionnaire. 3. Was subsequently phoned by GT Law about signing a statement of truth. 4. Had been diagnosed that my breathing problem was mild emphysema caused by my long-term smoking so I informed GT Law that I did not wish to proceed and I did not believe that the Sonae fire had any bearing on my current health problem. 5. Was told that I couldn’t withdraw my claim as the 7 day cooling off period from the date of the cold caller visit had expired. 6. I told them I did not wish to proceed with what would then be a fraudulent claim and was informed that if I withdrew I would have to pay their costs. 7. Subsequently received enclosed letter reiterating their claim for costs …”
“When did your symptoms reach a stage when you informed your employer or GP? Unfortunately I did not as I believed the headaches related to working at a computer. It is only now that it has been brought to my attention that I have linked the symptoms to the fire.”
“Leon Swift either of you’s jumped on this sonae claim bandwagon? TC been all over the radio MC residents living close going to solicitors due to harmful emissions from the plant MC looks like everyone’s doing it now because it’s shut down Leon Swift they’ve admitted liability so anyone living or working in the area at the time of the fire can claim MC get on it ken/tom MC not for me #too honest Leon Swift too honest ya, good one matt. I’m getting involved I reckon, pays for the summer holiday if it goes thru TC ha ha you’re a bad man Leon MC he’s a fraud Tom Leon Swift takes a fraud to know a fraud Matthew. Mr ‘I was in that car that crashed ye’ #showmethemoney MC my neck was sore when Dave crashed #thetruth Leon Swift Asking for trouble driving in flip flops MC if you crash give us a shout #whiplashclaim … MC I’m sure you was fine that time Dave had a crash Leon Swift least I was in the car though Matthew MC so was I”
“Q. If you were able positively to make a link, you would have made that link when the fire was burning, not later? A. Yes. Q. You have just said "yes". Are you agreeing with that proposition? A. No. Like it is difficult to remember exactly when you do make the association of the two. As I said previously, a lot of symptoms that I did experience are very similar symptoms to what I experienced on a regular basis. So it is difficult to differentiate between the two. Q. Exactly. Mr Swift, what happened is this. You would have great difficulty differentiating between symptoms you had anyway and symptoms from the fire, which is why you didn't make any association in those two months or so that you've said occurred before you made an association. A. Yes, but that's not to say that there wasn't necessarily an association between the two sets. Q. That's a separate question. The question is whether you can say there's an association. What I suggest is it was only a very significant period later, whether months or in fact I suggest early 2013, that you saw advertising literature, and you thought: well, I can say that those symptoms -- I'm not sure how they were caused -- were caused by that fire and I can get some money; do you accept that? A. That may have been the trigger that made me think about it again, but it wasn't the financial thing that I was thinking about in terms of making a claim. It was just I realised that the nuisance it had caused at the time, that I basically wanted to bring the claim. Q. The nuisance it had caused? What do you mean by the nuisance it had caused? A. Basically, if you're sitting in an office and you've got itchy eyes and tickly cough and sore nose, it's just -- it's inconvenience that you could do without when you're trying to work, isn't it? Q. But those are symptoms that are so similar to the symptoms you had anyway at the time of the year each year that you couldn't positively link those symptoms to the smoke, could you? A. As I said, though, those symptoms were heightened considerably. For example, I take Cetirizine, and that controls my hay fever. Things like that. I don't need to take anything additional during the time of the fire, I had to then go and purchase additional in order to try and appease the symptoms that I was referring to. Q. If that was true, Mr Swift, you would have made the link there and then, wouldn't you? You would have thought: why is any normal medication that always resolves my problems not resolving my problems? A. You would think so, yes.”
“But I'd say a couple of days in, after the immediate fire getting very severe, there was one or two days when it would be a lot worse in terms of maybe the smoke being lower. The house, I was always surrounded by it, and to be honest, I constantly had the curtain shut.” and subsequently: “Q. One final question. What was the atmosphere outside the house like in the period of the fire and the period immediately following it? The air quality, if you like. A. Very poor. It felt like I was trapped in the house. Any instance where I would have normally walked to the shop to get, you know, even bread and milk, I would have drove to a garage in (inaudible) because I didn't really want to go walking down the road. Q. That's what you did as a result of it, but what was the air quality like? Can you describe it? A. I would cough immediately. Q. That's a consequence. A. A consequence. Q. What was the air quality like? A. Okay. Sorry, could you rephrase that? Q. Yes. When you walked outside, was it a nice clear day or what? A. It obviously got worse on some days. So some days I couldn't see across the fields because of the direction the smoke was going in and I live very close to the fields. It was constantly smelling of the smoke and the fire and whatever else. God knows what was in there. But it was pretty horrid, to be honest.”
“Diagnosis Ganglion of wrist right-sided, noticed a few weeks ago, some constant discomfort, able to use hand normally, no pins/needles. O/E – ganglion, radial – N, sensation – N. Explained and reassured. Symptom Has a sore throat last 3 days, no fever, feels achy all over, able to eat and drink a little, some diarrhoea, foul smelling, no blood. O/E -well hydrated, systemically well, throat – tonsils inflamed, pus bilate[ral] explained bacterial tonsillitis …”
“Q. Why didn't you go to the GP before 8 July, if you had the symptoms you've talked about? A. Because the symptoms that I had, I felt were manageable. I don't want to go to the GP about every little thing, because I obviously go quite a lot with regards to my depression and anxiety. I don't want to bombard him with every little thing. Q. No. So your cough never got so bad that you thought, well, I really need to go and see a doctor? A. No. Q. Nor your shortness of breath? A. No. Because at that time my shortness of breath, initially I put it down to smoking, until it carried on for a couple of weeks, and then, because of the other symptoms I got, I related it to the fire. Q. It's just it was suggested at one point in the papers [the account given by Mr Woolvine to Dr Hardy] that at one point you got so breathless you had to sit down on a wall when you got to the church because you were too breathless; is that right or not? A. Yes. That's correct. Q. If you really had that symptom at this time, you would have gone to the GP, wouldn't you? A. No, because, as I say, initially, I did put it down to smoking and I did try and cut down at that stage, and after the two weeks it did ease off. Q. So when you cut down the cigarettes, the symptoms reduced? A. Yes, but I've never had problems -- I've smoked for 10, 12 years, on and off, so I've never experienced problems like that before, and it was just a bit coincidental that that happened at that period. Q. The association you made between your symptoms and the fire came very much later, didn't it? The association in your mind that the fire may have caused problems came much later? A. When I properly thought about it, yes.”
“In approximately January 2012, I was at work when I received a telephone call from my partner, Greg Taft. Greg told me that a lady had visited our home in Tower Hill who had told him that she was acting on behalf of GT Law solicitors who was dealing with claims against Sonae relating to smoke inhalation from the fire in June 2011. She said that Sonae had accepted liability and that compensation had already been paid out to claimants. The lady was attempting to encourage Greg to sign up in order to put forward a claim against Sonae for symptoms relating to smoke inhalation. Greg told her that he was not interested in making a claim and asked her to leave.”