Sarah Jane Wilson & Ors. v Bayer Pharma AG & Ors.

Sarah Jane Wilson & Ors. v Bayer Pharma AG & Ors.

The claims were struck out as an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate issues already determined in prior litigation, specifically the inability to establish causation between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. There had been no material change in scientific evidence or circumstances since the 1982 discontinuance. The claimants lacked viable expert evidence, funding, and representation, and had no realistic prospect of success. It would be manifestly unfair to the defendants to require them to defend the same issues again at great cost.

Parties
Claimants: 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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Product Liability / Group Litigation / Strike Out Application / Application for Leave to Proceed
Outcome
Claims struck out as an abuse of process; application for leave to proceed refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Causation, Strike Out, Group Litigation, Access to Justice
Tort Product Liability Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Causation Strike Out Group Litigation Access to Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Jane Wilson & Others

Claimants

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 / Group Litigation / Strike Out Application / Application for Leave to Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be granted leave to proceed with claims previously discontinued in 1982 due to lack of causation evidence
  2. 2 Whether the current proceedings constitute an abuse of process by relitigating issues already determined or discontinued
  3. 3 Whether the claims are viable in the absence of funding, representation, and supportive expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were struck out as an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate issues already determined in prior litigation, specifically the inability to establish causation between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. There had been no material change in scientific evidence or circumstances since the 1982 discontinuance. The claimants lacked viable expert evidence, funding, and representation, and had no realistic prospect of success. It would be manifestly unfair to the defendants to require them to defend the same issues again at great cost.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out as an abuse of process; application for leave to proceed refused.

Orders

  • Mr Hyman's application for leave to proceed is refused and his claim is struck out.
  • All other claims are struck out as an abuse of process.