Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1975 (QB) (29 July 2016)

Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1975 (QB) (29 July 2016)

The court held that, despite reservations about the valuation of the claims and some uncertainties regarding funding, it has not been demonstrated that the claims should be halted at this stage. The Claimants are permitted to substitute experts and prepare updated reports, after which the Defendant may consider further applications. The step-by-step approach is justified to allow the Claimants to demonstrate the high point of their pleaded case and does not cause prejudice to the Defendant.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1975 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sandra Bailey and Others; Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation (product Liability) / Case Management Conference (cmc) Following Earlier Judgment and Directions
Outcome
Claims allowed to proceed to next stage; substitution of experts permitted; updated reports to be prepared.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation, Case Management, Expert Evidence, Funding of Litigation, Proportionality of Costs
Product Liability Civil Procedure Group Litigation Case Management Expert Evidence Funding of Litigation Proportionality of Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Bailey and Others

Claimant

GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation (product Liability) / Case Management Conference (cmc) Following Earlier Judgment and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims should be allowed to continue or struck out/stayed for case management reasons
  2. 2 Whether the value of the claims justifies continuation (proportionality)
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants have adequate funding to proceed to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, despite reservations about the valuation of the claims and some uncertainties regarding funding, it has not been demonstrated that the claims should be halted at this stage. The Claimants are permitted to substitute experts and prepare updated reports, after which the Defendant may consider further applications. The step-by-step approach is justified to allow the Claimants to demonstrate the high point of their pleaded case and does not cause prejudice to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed to proceed to next stage; substitution of experts permitted; updated reports to be prepared.

Orders

  • Claimants permitted to substitute experts and prepare updated (and new) expert reports.
  • Parties to attempt to agree a timetable and appropriate order for preparation of reports.