Karen Louise Tongue & Ors v Bayer Public Limited Company & Ors

Karen Louise Tongue & Ors v Bayer Public Limited Company & Ors

The threshold for a GLO is met as there are approximately 200 claimants with common or related issues of fact or law regarding the alleged defectiveness of the Essure device. The court exercises its discretion to recommend a GLO as the most effective and proportionate case management tool.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Karen Louise Tongue and 177 others; Respondent/defendant: Bayer Public Limited Company; Respondent/defendant: Bayer Pharma (AG); Respondent/defendant: NHS Indemnified Bodies; Respondent/defendant: Cardiff and Vale University Health Board; Respondent/defendant: Swansea Bay University Health Board; Respondent/defendant: Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Application / Application for Group Litigation Order (glo)
Outcome
Application for Group Litigation Order recommended for approval
Legal Topics
Defective Medical Devices, Group Litigation Order, Negligence, Consumer Protection
Product Liability Medical Law Civil Procedure Defective Medical Devices Group Litigation Order Negligence Consumer Protection

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Louise Tongue and 177 others

Applicant/claimant

Bayer Public Limited Company

Respondent/defendant

Bayer Pharma (AG)

Respondent/defendant

NHS Indemnified Bodies

Respondent/defendant

Cardiff and Vale University Health Board

Respondent/defendant

Swansea Bay University Health Board

Respondent/defendant

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Application / Application for Group Litigation Order (glo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Essure device was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether claims should be managed under a Group Litigation Order
  3. 3 Whether alternative case management would be more appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for a GLO is met as there are approximately 200 claimants with common or related issues of fact or law regarding the alleged defectiveness of the Essure device. The court exercises its discretion to recommend a GLO as the most effective and proportionate case management tool.

Court Disposition

Application for Group Litigation Order recommended for approval

Orders

  • Recommend the President of the King's Bench Division makes a GLO in the terms agreed between the parties