Snell & Ors v Robert Young & Co Ltd. & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1644 (21 November 2002)

Snell & Ors v Robert Young & Co Ltd. & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1644 (21 November 2002)

The judge's intent and effect in his earlier judgments was to bring all claims, both group and individual, to an end as an abuse of process due to their unviability, lack of evidence of causation, and absence of funding. The subsequent Note did not alter this, and the final order properly reflected the judgments. There was no procedural unfairness to Mr Cooper, who had liberty to apply. The appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1644
Parties
Appellants: Herbert George Snell & Others; Appellant: Evan Owen Jones; Respondents: Robert Young & Co Limited & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Group Litigation, Strike Out Applications, Causation in Tort, Limitation of Actions, Legal Aid Funding
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Product Liability Abuse of Process Group Litigation Strike Out Applications Causation in Tort Limitation of Actions +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert George Snell & Others

Appellants

Evan Owen Jones

Appellant

Robert Young & Co Limited & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of group litigation as an abuse of process also required dismissal of individual claims within the group
  2. 2 Whether the judge's subsequent clarification could alter the effect of his earlier orders
  3. 3 Whether it was wrong to strike out individual claims as an abuse of process where they had not been individually dismissed under CPR Part 24

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's intent and effect in his earlier judgments was to bring all claims, both group and individual, to an end as an abuse of process due to their unviability, lack of evidence of causation, and absence of funding. The subsequent Note did not alter this, and the final order properly reflected the judgments. There was no procedural unfairness to Mr Cooper, who had liberty to apply. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All appeals dismissed
  • Group litigation and all individual claims on the register as of 31 July 2001 dismissed as an abuse of process