Wilson & Ors v Bayer Pharma AG & Ors [2023] EWHC 1282 (KB) (26 May 2023)

Wilson & Ors v Bayer Pharma AG & Ors [2023] EWHC 1282 (KB) (26 May 2023)

The claims are struck out as an abuse of process and for lack of viability. There is no sufficient new scientific evidence or marked change in circumstances since the 1982 litigation to justify relitigation of causation. The claimants have not produced cogent expert evidence to support causation or to exclude genetic causes. The claimants lack funding and legal representation, and there is no realistic prospect of the litigation proceeding to trial. The requirements of Bingham J's 1982 order have not been met, and permission to proceed is refused.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1282 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Jane Wilson & Others; First Defendant: Bayer Pharma AG; Second Defendant: Schering Healthcare Limited; Third Defendant: Aventis Pharma Limited; Fourth Defendant: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Product Liability / Personal Injury / Strike Out/permission to Proceed Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
Claims struck out; permission to proceed refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Causation, Expert Evidence, Strike Out, Permission to Proceed, Res Judicata
Product Liability Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Causation Expert Evidence Strike Out Permission to Proceed +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Jane Wilson & Others

Claimant

Bayer Pharma AG

First Defendant

Schering Healthcare Limited

Second Defendant

Aventis Pharma Limited

Third Defendant

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Product Liability / Personal Injury / Strike Out/permission to Proceed Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants require permission to proceed due to prior discontinued litigation (Hyman order)
  2. 2 Whether claims should be struck out as an abuse of process or for lack of viability
  3. 3 Whether there is new scientific evidence or a marked change in circumstances since 1982 to justify relitigation of causation

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are struck out as an abuse of process and for lack of viability. There is no sufficient new scientific evidence or marked change in circumstances since the 1982 litigation to justify relitigation of causation. The claimants have not produced cogent expert evidence to support causation or to exclude genetic causes. The claimants lack funding and legal representation, and there is no realistic prospect of the litigation proceeding to trial. The requirements of Bingham J's 1982 order have not been met, and permission to proceed is refused.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; permission to proceed refused

Orders

  • All claims are struck out as an abuse of process and/or for lack of viability.
  • Permission to proceed with the Hyman claim is refused.