Hobson & Ors v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors & Ors [2006] EWHC 1134 (QB) (18 May 2006)

Hobson & Ors v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors & Ors [2006] EWHC 1134 (QB) (18 May 2006)

The application for a Group Litigation Order was refused because it failed to identify sufficiently common or related issues of fact or law as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The claims were fact-specific, involved different agreements and parties, and could be more appropriately resolved by test cases or other procedures. The application was unnecessary, disproportionate, and constituted an abuse of the group litigation system. The insurance arrangements were inadequately disclosed and raised further concerns about the propriety of the application.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1134
Parties
Applicants: Alan Thomas Hobson & Ors; 1st Respondent: Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors; 2nd Respondent: Moss Solicitors; 3rd Respondent: Beresfords Solicitors; 4th Respondent: Wake Smith Solicitors; 5th Respondent: Raleys Solicitors; 6th Respondent: The Union of Democratic Mineworkers (Nottingham Section); 7th Respondent: Vendside Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Group Litigation Order (glo) / Judgment on Application for GLO
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Orders, Solicitor's Duties, Trade Union Agreements, Costs and Funding, After the Event Insurance
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Group Litigation Orders Solicitor's Duties Trade Union Agreements Costs and Funding After the Event Insurance

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Thomas Hobson & Ors

Applicants

Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors

1st Respondent

Moss Solicitors

2nd Respondent

Beresfords Solicitors

3rd Respondent

Wake Smith Solicitors

4th Respondent

Raleys Solicitors

5th Respondent

The Union of Democratic Mineworkers (Nottingham Section)

6th Respondent

Vendside Limited

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Group Litigation Order (glo) / Judgment on Application for GLO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) meets the requirements under CPR 19.10 and 19.11
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the solicitors and trade unions raise common or related issues of fact or law suitable for group litigation
  3. 3 Whether alternative and more proportionate procedures were available for resolving the underlying disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a Group Litigation Order was refused because it failed to identify sufficiently common or related issues of fact or law as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The claims were fact-specific, involved different agreements and parties, and could be more appropriately resolved by test cases or other procedures. The application was unnecessary, disproportionate, and constituted an abuse of the group litigation system. The insurance arrangements were inadequately disclosed and raised further concerns about the propriety of the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for Group Litigation Order refused
  • No order for group litigation to proceed