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 meet the mandatory requirements for a GLO under CPR 19.10 and 19.11. The issues were not sufficiently common or suitable for group litigation, alternative and more cost-effective procedures were available, and the application was disproportionate given the value of the claims and the costs incurred. The applicants' approach was found to be misconceived and an abuse of the group litigation system.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1134 (QB)
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 for Group Litigation Order refused
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Orders, Solicitor Negligence, Trade Union Agreements, Costs and Funding, Enforceability of Agreements
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Labour Law Group Litigation Orders Solicitor Negligence Trade Union Agreements Costs and Funding +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 agreements between claimants and trade unions/solicitors are unenforceable or improperly executed
  3. 3 Whether solicitors breached duties to claimants in relation to deductions from compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a Group Litigation Order was refused because it failed to meet the mandatory requirements for a GLO under CPR 19.10 and 19.11. The issues were not sufficiently common or suitable for group litigation, alternative and more cost-effective procedures were available, and the application was disproportionate given the value of the claims and the costs incurred. The applicants' approach was found to be misconceived and an abuse of the group litigation system.

Court Disposition

Application for Group Litigation Order refused

Orders

  • Application for GLO dismissed
  • No order for group litigation to proceed