Sayers & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors

Sayers & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors

The court ordered that undecided claimants must notify intentions by 22 October 2004 or face dismissal of claims; claimants wishing to discontinue must serve notices or notify intention to proceed by the same date; group litigation status remains; approval in principle is given to settlement terms offered by defendants as the costs amnesty is of value and the chance of public funding being restored is remote; expert evidence may be disclosed for limited purposes; cost-capping is not justified on current evidence.

Parties
Claimants: Paul Sayers and others; First Defendant: Smithkline Beecham Plc; Second Defendant: Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd.; Third Defendant: Merck & Co. Inc.; Fourth Defendant: Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation (product Liability) / Case Management Conference Ruling
Outcome
Case management orders issued; approval in principle to settlement terms; group litigation status maintained.
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Claims, Costs Orders, Public Funding Withdrawal, Group Litigation Orders, Settlement Approval, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Product Liability Access to Justice Discontinuance of Claims Costs Orders Public Funding Withdrawal Group Litigation Orders Settlement Approval +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Sayers and others

Claimants

Smithkline Beecham Plc

First Defendant

Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd.

Second Defendant

Merck & Co. Inc.

Third Defendant

Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation (product Liability) / Case Management Conference Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What orders should be made for claimants wishing to discontinue, proceed, or undecided?
  2. 2 What is the effect of discontinuance on future claims and costs?
  3. 3 Should the court approve settlement terms offered by defendants?

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that undecided claimants must notify intentions by 22 October 2004 or face dismissal of claims; claimants wishing to discontinue must serve notices or notify intention to proceed by the same date; group litigation status remains; approval in principle is given to settlement terms offered by defendants as the costs amnesty is of value and the chance of public funding being restored is remote; expert evidence may be disclosed for limited purposes; cost-capping is not justified on current evidence.

Court Disposition

Case management orders issued; approval in principle to settlement terms; group litigation status maintained.

Orders

  • Claimants who have not notified intentions must do so by 22 October 2004 or claims will be dismissed with costs up to date of legal aid certificate discharge.
  • Claimants intending to discontinue must serve notice or notify intention to proceed by 22 October 2004.