Snell & Ors v. Young & Co Ltd & Ors [2001] EWHC QB 449 (9th November, 2001)

Snell & Ors v. Young & Co Ltd & Ors [2001] EWHC QB 449 (9th November, 2001)

The claimants failed to adduce sufficient expert evidence on causation, particularly from neurologists and psychiatrists, rendering the group action unviable. Continuing the litigation would be unjust and oppressive to the defendants, given the lack of realistic prospect of success and the substantial costs already incurred. The group action and most individual claims are struck out.

Citation
[2001] EWHC QB 449
Parties
Claimant: Herbert George Snell and Others; Defendant: Robert Young & Co Ltd and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation / Judgment on Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Group action struck out; most individual claims struck out; some individual claims allowed to proceed subject to further evidence.
Legal Topics
Causation, Expert Evidence, Group Litigation, Strike Out, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Consumer Protection Act 1987
Tort Product Liability Personal Injury Civil Procedure Causation Expert Evidence Group Litigation Strike Out +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert George Snell and Others

Claimant

Robert Young & Co Ltd and Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation / Judgment on Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have adduced sufficient expert evidence to establish causation between organophosphate exposure and alleged injuries
  2. 2 Whether group litigation should be struck out as unviable
  3. 3 Whether individual claims should be struck out for lack of realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to adduce sufficient expert evidence on causation, particularly from neurologists and psychiatrists, rendering the group action unviable. Continuing the litigation would be unjust and oppressive to the defendants, given the lack of realistic prospect of success and the substantial costs already incurred. The group action and most individual claims are struck out.

Court Disposition

Group action struck out; most individual claims struck out; some individual claims allowed to proceed subject to further evidence.

Orders

  • Group litigation struck out as unviable
  • Bruce's claim struck out