Abdel-Kader & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB) (28 July 2022)

Abdel-Kader & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB) (28 July 2022)

Judgment on admissions can only be entered where there is a complete admission of duty, breach, and causation of loss; in the absence of such admissions and supporting evidence (especially medical evidence for causation), judgment cannot be entered. Interim costs require evidence of costs incurred, which was not provided. The interests of efficient case management, the ongoing ADR process, and the need to avoid duplicative litigation justify a further 12-month stay of all claims, including the BLJ claims, despite their opposition. The BLJ claims are not sufficiently distinct or ready to proceed to justify exclusion from the stay.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2006
Parties
Claimants: Abdel-Kader and ors; Atmani and ors; Talabi and ors; De Costa and ors; Alie and anor; Hart and ors; Walton; Defendants: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and ors; Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited; Arconic Architectural Products SAS; Arconic Corporation; Celotex Limited; CEP Architects Facades Ltd; CS Stokes and Associates Ltd; Exova (UK) Ltd; Harley Facades Ltd; Harley Curtain Wall Ltd (in liquidation); Howmet Aerospace Inc.; Kingspan Insulation Ltd; Rydon Maintenance Ltd; Studio E Architects Ltd; The Home Office; The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Limited; Whirlpool Company Polska Sp.z.o.o, and ors; Whirlpool Corporation; Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited; The London Fire Commissioner; Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Group Personal Injury and Property Damage Litigation (civil) / Second Case Management Conference; Applications for Judgment, Interim Costs, Stay, and Related Case Management Orders
Outcome
Applications granted in part and refused in part; judgment entered in 9 BLJ claims only; interim costs application refused; 12-month stay of all claims (including BLJ) ordered; permission to restore interim costs application when stay lifted; no order for defences to be served at this stage.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Misfeasance in Public Office, Interim Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Group Litigation Orders (glo), Case Management
Tort Law Civil Procedure Public Law Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Misfeasance in Public Office +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdel-Kader and ors; Atmani and ors; Talabi and ors; De Costa and ors; Alie and anor; Hart and ors; Walton

Claimants

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and ors; Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited; Arconic Architectural Products SAS; Arconic Corporation; Celotex Limited; CEP Architects Facades Ltd; CS Stokes and Associates Ltd; Exova (UK) Ltd; Harley Facades Ltd; Harley Curtain Wall Ltd (in liquidation); Howmet Aerospace Inc.; Kingspan Insulation Ltd; Rydon Maintenance Ltd; Studio E Architects Ltd; The Home Office; The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Limited; Whirlpool Company Polska Sp.z.o.o, and ors; Whirlpool Corporation; Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited; The London Fire Commissioner; Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Group Personal Injury and Property Damage Litigation (civil) / Second Case Management Conference; Applications for Judgment, Interim Costs, Stay, and Related Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judgment should be entered in 53 BLJ claims where duty and breach admitted;
  2. 2 Whether interim costs should be ordered in favour of BLJ Claimants;
  3. 3 Whether a further 12-month stay of proceedings should be granted;

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment on admissions can only be entered where there is a complete admission of duty, breach, and causation of loss; in the absence of such admissions and supporting evidence (especially medical evidence for causation), judgment cannot be entered. Interim costs require evidence of costs incurred, which was not provided. The interests of efficient case management, the ongoing ADR process, and the need to avoid duplicative litigation justify a further 12-month stay of all claims, including the BLJ claims, despite their opposition. The BLJ claims are not sufficiently distinct or ready to proceed to justify exclusion from the stay.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part and refused in part; judgment entered in 9 BLJ claims only; interim costs application refused; 12-month stay of all claims (including BLJ) ordered; permission to restore interim costs application when stay lifted; no order for defences to be served at this stage.

Orders

  • Judgment on admissions entered in 9 BLJ claims where full admission made; damages to be assessed.
  • Interim costs application refused; permission to restore when stay lifted and evidence available.