Four difficulties for smokers bringing cases in UK courts

Legal costs are enormous. There is no legal aid They will be liable for the tobacco companies' costs if they lose Cases are heard by judges, not juries, who may be conservative There is no concept of punitive damages, so potential gains are comparatively small and may not be worth the risk

Yet any attempts in English courts to get such compensation have failed - and Scottish smokers are also still waiting for a successful case.

So has a UK smoker got any chance of getting �2bn?

The only case yet brought before English courts was begun in 1992.

The court action was taken by 52 lung cancer sufferers against two tobacco companies, Gallaher and Imperial Tobacco.

But seven years into the case a judge ruled that 36 of the 52 had been diagnosed with the disease more than three years before suing.

He ruled that under English law this was too late to go to court, and the case collapsed.

Lawyers were going to take the remaining 16 on a case-by-case, "no win, no fee" basis.

But they pulled out because they risked being landed with millions of pounds in legal costs for each case if they lost.

Financing

The case points to several major difficulties smokers find with the UK legal system - not least, the millions of pounds of financing required.

The Legal Aid Board has so far always refused funds, because of lack of confidence that the cases can win.

This means lawyers would probably have to act on a "no win, no fee basis".

In the US this is common. There, plaintiffs are not expected to pay their opponents' legal fees if they lose so the risks are lower

The potential payouts in the US are also so enormous, lawyers are often prepared to take the gamble.

In the UK there is not the same concept of punitive damages. Therefore the potential gains are much smaller.

For instance, it was estimated each smoker in the 1992 case could have won �25,000-65,000 for loss of earnings and suffering.

Anti-smoking organisation Ash said there was a further problem in the UK - the fact that in the US such cases are heard by juries, and in the UK by a judge.

Judges are much more likely than juries to be conservative and side with tobacco companies, said director Clive Bates.

"A jury might emphathise much more with what it's like to be a smoker," he told BBC News Online.

Things are a little different in Scotland, where Glasgow firm Ross Harper has about 140 clients in some stage of the legal process.

Lawyer Cameron Fyfe told BBC News Online most of the legal arguments are the same in Scottish law and English law - but there is one big difference.

"The courts do tend to be more sympathetic towards the consumer than they are south of the border," he said.

The first case, and one which will be a test for all the others, is that of Margaret McTear from Beith, Ayrshire, due to be heard in September.

She is continuing an action begun by her husband Alfred, a smoker for 30 years, who died of lung cancer in 1993, aged 49.

She is now suing Imperial Tobacco for �500,000 for loss of society, lost earnings and his pain and suffering.

Mr Fyfe is acting on a "no win, no fee" basis. But he does not risk having to pay millions of pounds to Imperial if he loses - Mrs McTear has won the right not to have to put up �2m as security to cover Imperial's legal costs in the event of her losing the action.

Her case is said to be "fraught with difficulties", and if she loses, all the other cases will be dismissed.

But if she wins, lawyers hope all the other claimants will win out-of-court settlements - or at least legal aid with which to fund their case.