Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1924 (08 November 2019)

Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1924 (08 November 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because the Claimants' case on defect was, by prior unappealed case management rulings, limited to the 'worst in class' allegation regarding discontinuation symptoms. The Claimants could not expand their case at trial to include a risk/benefit analysis or assert absence of relative benefit, as this would be contrary to the defined scope of the trial and would cause unfairness to the Defendant.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1924
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Bailey & Ors; Defendant/respondent: GlaxoSmithKline
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Products, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Risk/benefit Analysis, Group Litigation, Case Management, Pleadings
Product Liability Consumer Protection Pharmaceutical Law Defective Products Consumer Protection Act 1987 Risk/benefit Analysis Group Litigation Case Management +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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bailey & Ors

Claimants/appellants

GlaxoSmithKline

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants could advance a case that Seroxat had no particular benefits relative to other SSRIs at trial
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the Claimants' case on defect was limited to 'worst in class' for discontinuation symptoms
  3. 3 Whether prior unappealed case management rulings precluded expansion of the pleaded case to include a risk/benefit analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Claimants' case on defect was, by prior unappealed case management rulings, limited to the 'worst in class' allegation regarding discontinuation symptoms. The Claimants could not expand their case at trial to include a risk/benefit analysis or assert absence of relative benefit, as this would be contrary to the defined scope of the trial and would cause unfairness to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed