- Miscellaneous Information
Glen Millar is presently Managing Partner of Thompsons Scotland's mining compensation department in Edinburgh which deals with cases arising from the former Scottish coal mining industry.
Glen joined Thompsons in 1995 as a disaffected commercial lawyer and immediately found a niche within the Glasgow office where he had responsibility for workplace and other reparation cases arising from Lanarkshire, one of Scotland's industrial heartlands.
Promoted to the position of Associate in 1997, Glen followed this with a notable success in the landmark case of James McNulty -v- Marshall Food Group 1999 SC 195 where a Scottish Court was persuaded for the first time to adopt a more favourable approach, pioneered in England, to the calculation of an injured party's future loss of earnings.
Glen was appointed a Partner in the firm in 1999 and continued in his Glasgow office role until 2002 when he headed east to add senior expertise to the firm's burgeoning Edinburgh mining operation. Since then he has been involved in high level management of the firm's substantial mining case load of chest disease and vibration white finger claims, to include regular negotiations with the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform as well as Civil Servants and lawyers instructed on its behalf.
In autumn 2006 Glen was appointed to the position of sole Scottish representative on the national steering groups responsible for negotiation and ongoing implementation of the British Coal chest disease and vibration white finger Handling Agreements.
Notwithstanding his very full time mining role since 2002, Glen found time in 2003 to qualify as a Solicitor-Advocate giving rights of audience before the Supreme Courts and to gain Law Society accreditation as a specialist in personal injury law. He has also managed to retain a case holding of industrial accident and road traffic work, from which emerged the important case of Kerry Donnelly -v- F A S Products Limited decision of Lord Brodie 19th March 2004, authority for the proposition that an amputee may obtain a prosthesis privately and recover the cost from the culpable party even where alternative treatment is available on the NHS.