If I had discharged my responsibilities perfectly, then I would not fear their pursuit, neither should you. Lets all just get the disc, look at it , revel in its simplicity , and just carry on
.
You've obviously never heard of the 'Babb vs. Merit' case that was appealed in the UK High Court and where the plaintiff (who was the recipient of the contracted service) won.
The Judgement held that a professionally-qualified employee has a personal Duty of Care towards his/her employer's customers. This case is about 10 years old but as far as I know, nothing has subsequently happened to overturn the Judgement.
As far as the Duty of Care is concerned despite the CAA and MOD blurb and bull****, the bottom line is that it's all down to "reasonableness" and not ultimately, down to the type of service being provided.
Thus, even under FIS (or 'Basic Service' after March 12th next year), if you have two aircraft that you know
or could reasonably be expected to know, having regard to the information available to you, are on a collision course, simply sticking to the 'new' ATSOCAS rules just won't wash especially if damage
(= death, injury, financial loss or significant emotional trauma) arises and it ends up in a civil court with a claim for damages.
It's still an absolute can of worms which is why several leading non-NATS units located inside CAS still refuse to participate in the UK LARS service
(BTW, the income received by those that do, doesn't even begin to cover the cost of service provision anyway...). 