Sayers & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors [2004] EWHC 1899 (QB) (30 July 2004)

Sayers & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors [2004] EWHC 1899 (QB) (30 July 2004)

The court approved in principle the settlement terms offered by the defendants, finding that the claimants’ chances of restored public funding were remote and that the costs amnesty was of real value. Orders were made to clarify the process for discontinuance, notification of intentions, and disclosure of expert evidence, with the group litigation structure to remain pending further developments. The court clarified the application of CPR rules on discontinuance and the need for court approval in cases involving claimants under disability or multiple claimants.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1899 (QB)
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; Orders on Discontinuance, Costs, and Settlement Approval
Outcome
Orders made for notification, discontinuance, and approval in principle of settlement terms; group litigation structure maintained; no cost-capping ordered; directions for disclosure of expert evidence.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation, Discontinuance of Claims, Costs Orders, Legal Aid/public Funding, Settlement Approval, Limitation Periods, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Negligence
Civil Procedure Product Liability Medical Law Group Litigation Discontinuance of Claims Costs Orders Legal Aid/public Funding Settlement Approval +3 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 5 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; Orders on Discontinuance, Costs, and Settlement Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate orders for claimants wishing to discontinue claims
  2. 2 Orders for claimants wishing to proceed or undecided
  3. 3 Effect of withdrawal of public funding on litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court approved in principle the settlement terms offered by the defendants, finding that the claimants’ chances of restored public funding were remote and that the costs amnesty was of real value. Orders were made to clarify the process for discontinuance, notification of intentions, and disclosure of expert evidence, with the group litigation structure to remain pending further developments. The court clarified the application of CPR rules on discontinuance and the need for court approval in cases involving claimants under disability or multiple claimants.

Court Disposition

Orders made for notification, discontinuance, and approval in principle of settlement terms; group litigation structure maintained; no cost-capping ordered; directions for disclosure of expert evidence.

Orders

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