Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 138 (08 March 2016)

Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 138 (08 March 2016)

The appeal was bound to fail because, even if bias or apparent bias were established, the claimant could not show that another judge would have granted the GLO application. The original refusal of the GLO was justified on multiple substantive and procedural grounds, including insufficient commonality of issues, inadequate claimant numbers, disproportionate costs, and uncertainty over ATE insurance. No causative link between the alleged bias/conspiracy and the claimant's loss was established.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 138
Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Jackson; Defendants/respondents: Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Orders, Judicial Bias, Conspiracy, ATE Insurance, Solicitors' Duties, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Tort Law Group Litigation Orders Judicial Bias Conspiracy ATE Insurance Solicitors' Duties +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Jackson

Claimant/appellant

Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) and Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding no actual or apparent bias by Sir Michael Turner in dismissing the GLO application
  2. 2 Whether the defendants conspired to procure a biased judge or to harm the claimant's business
  3. 3 Whether causation between alleged bias/conspiracy and the claimant's loss was established

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was bound to fail because, even if bias or apparent bias were established, the claimant could not show that another judge would have granted the GLO application. The original refusal of the GLO was justified on multiple substantive and procedural grounds, including insufficient commonality of issues, inadequate claimant numbers, disproportionate costs, and uncertainty over ATE insurance. No causative link between the alleged bias/conspiracy and the claimant's loss was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to further proceedings.