Updated: Regular update
List of all group litigation orders
Reference number
Name of group litigation
Date of order
95
Royal Mail Group Litigation
22 July 2016
94
Corin Metal on Metal Hip
22 Oct 2015
93
Construction Industry Vetting Information
8 Oct 2015
92
CPT
14 Aug 2008
91
Winterbourne View
27 Feb 2013
90
Recognised Overseas Self Invested International Pensions (ROSIIP)
22 Jun 2012
89
Sonae
12 Jul 2012
88
PIP Breast Implant
3 Dec 2014
87
Shared Appreciation Mortgages (SAMs)
5 Oct 2009
86
Zimmer Metasul Large Diameter Head and Durom Metal on Metal Hip
3 Dec 2014
85
Hafod Landfill
22 Oct 2013
84
Fleetwood
9 Dec 2012
83
Monckton
11 Nov 2012
82
Wildriggs Rendering Site
5 May 2011
81
Construction Industry Vetting information
10 Jul 2014
80
DePuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal Hip
31 Jul 2014
79
Lyme & Wood Landfill Group
21 Nov 2013
78
RBS Rights issue
19 Sep 2013
77
CF Arch cru
14 Oct 2013
76
Visteon UK Ltd
20 Dec 2012
75
Iraqi Civilian Employees
12 Jul 2010
74
Stamp Taxes
21 Oct 2010
73
Manchester Children’s Homes (No.2)
27 Jul 2010
72
Norton Aluminium
26 May 2010
71
Linkwise
19 Jun 2008
70
Opiate Dependant Prisoners (No.2)
21 Jul 2009
69
Westmill Landfill
27 Mar 2009
68
Seroxat
29 Oct 2008
67
North Wales Children’s Homes
25 May 1999
66
Ocensa Pipeline
24 Sep 2008
65
MSC Napoli
9 Jun 2008
64
Powertrain
10 Oct 2007
63
St William’s
5 Sep 2006
62
Miner’s Knee
21 Dec 2006
61
Atomic Veterans
16 Jul 2007
60
Soviva Hotel
2 Nov 2006
59
VAT Interest Cars
28 Jun 2007
58
Abidjan Personal Injury
12 Mar 2007
57
St William’s
5 Sep 2006
56
Parkwood
23 Aug 2006
55
Lincoln Prison
3 Aug 2006
54
Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) Damages
21 Jun 2006
53
Corby
14 Feb 2006
52
Mogden
21 Dec 2005
51
Fetal Anti Convulsant (FAC)
25 Aug 2005
50
DePuy Hylamer
8 Aug 2005
49
Dexion Deafness
28 Apr 2005
48
Torremolinos Beach Club
21 Apr 2005
47
Staffordshire Children’s Homes
11 Feb 2005
46
Evolution Films
Pending
45
British Telecommunications Pensions Group Ltd
4 Aug 2004
44
St George’s
19 Apr 2004
43
Foreign Income Dividends (FIDs)
20 Jul 2004
42
Calderdale
16 Apr 2004
41
Lloyd’s Names UK Government
16 Apr 2004
40
Sabril
4 Feb 2004
39
Newton Longville
27 Mar 2003
38
Trilucent Breast Implant
1 Jul 2003
37
Park West
4 Jan 2002
36
Kirklees
1 Sep 2001
35
Franked Investment Income
8 Oct 2003
34
Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) Dividend
30 Jul 2003
33
Thin Cap
30 Jul 2003
32
South Wales Children’s Homes (National Children’s Home)
28 Nov 2002
31
South Wales Children’s Homes (Local Authority)
28 Nov 2002
30
Loss Relief
23 May 2003
29
Kenya Training Areas
4 Nov 2002
28
Scania 4 Series
22 Jul 2002
27
Chagos Islanders
3 Jul 2002
26
St Leonard’s
12 Jun 2002
25
Havelock
19 Jun 2001
24
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel
8 Mar 2002
23
United Utilities Sandon Dock
20 Mar 2002
22A
Manchester Childrens Homes
1 Jul 2003
22
Manchester Childrens Homes
12 Jun 2001
21
Persona
28 Jan 2001
20
Ryanair Agents
17 Jan 2002
19
Trecatti
26 Nov 2001
18
Coal Mining Contractors Contribution
7 Jan 2002
17
Lower Lea Special School
12 Dec 2001
16
Advance Corporation Tax (ACT)
26 Nov 2001
15
Longcare
21 Nov 2001
14
Gerona Air Crash
18 Aug 2001
13
Nantygwyddon
15 Aug 2001
12
DePuy Hylamer
10 Aug 2001
11
West Kirby Residential School
27 Jun 2001
10
Esso Collection
27 Jun 2001
9
Nationwide Organ
16 Jun 2001
8
McDonalds Hot Drinks
22 May 2001
7
JMC Holidays / Club Aguamar
8 Feb 2001
6
JMC Holidays
7 Nov 2000
5
Gower Chemicals
18 Nov 2000
4
Cape plc
3 Nov 2000
3
Kerr/North Yorkshire Health Authority
18 Oct 2000
2
Royal Liverpool Children’s
12 Nov 2000
1A
Redbank
13 Jun 2001
1
Redbank
10 Nov 2000
2001 Folio 398
Prentice Ltd/DaimlerChrysler UK Ltd
30 Apr 2001
95. Royal Mail Group Litigation
Date of order: 22 July 2016
Judge: Mr Justice Mann
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Mishcon de Reya LLP, Africa House, 70 Kingsway, London WC2B 6AH
Defining issues
This litigation concerns the VAT treatment of postal services supplied by Royal Mail (“RM”) to the claimants for consideration. The issue is whether the services should have been standard rated by reason of European Union law at the time they were supplied, and whether the price paid by the claimants for the services was a VAT inclusive amount.
The claims are for alleged breaches of RM’s statutory duty to issue VAT invoices to the claimants in respect of the services. The claimants seek a range of remedies arising from the alleged breaches.
The cut-off date for new claimants to join the group litigation is 28 February 2017.
94. Corin Metal on Metal Hip
Date of order: 22 October 2015
Judge: The Senior Master, Master Fontaine, and Master Cook
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing judge: Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day
Defining issues
The correct approach in law to the determination of defect under section 3 of the CPA [Consumer Protection Act] 1987.
Whether each of Corin’s products was defective at the relevant date of supply.
The correct approach in law to the applicability of the “development risks” defence in section 4(e) of the CPA 1987.
93. Construction Industry Vetting Information
Date of order: 8 October 2015
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Supperstone and Master Leslie
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Thompsons Solicitors, Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3LW
Defining issues
Paragraph 35 of the Group Litigation Order dated 10 July 2014 be amended so as to read:
The cut off date for registration of claims on the Group Register shall be 2 February 2016. No Claim shall be entered on the Group Register after this date, save by Order of the Management Court.
The following costs relating to the July 2015 CMC shall be common costs in the case:
(a) The CSSG’s costs of its application for disclosure against the Macfarlanes Defendants; and
(b) The costs of the Macfarlanes Defendants occasioned by the CSSG’s application for expert evidence.
92. CPT
Date of order: 14 August 2008
Judge: His Honour Judge Griggs
Court: Truro County Court
Managing court: Truro County Court
Lead solicitors: Richard Scrase of Follett Stock, Truro Business Park, Truro, TR4 9NH
Defining issues
Whether the First and/or Second Defendants are liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants in negligence and/or for breach of statutory duty in respect of:
Medication administered without the Claimant’s consent and without the proper authorisation of a qualified medical practitioner
The use of physical intervention holds to restrain the Claimant in communal areas
The failure to obtain, implement and periodically review a suitable care plan for the Claimant
Conditions and standards of care generally
Whether the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants for breach(es) of the Human Rights Act.
Whether the First Defendant is liable to the Claimant for assault or battery.
Whether the First and/or Second Defendants are liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants to make restitution and/or for breach(es) of fiduciary duty and/or for breach of trust.
91. Winterbourne View
Date of order: 27 February 2013
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Andrew Hannam of Foot Anstey LLP, 100 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6HX
Defining issues
In such circumstances as it is proved that the Claimants were either:
themselves abused while under the care of the Defendant at Winterbourne View Hospital (WVH), or
injured by witnessing the abuse of other residents at WVH, or
injured by learning of the abuse of close relatives at WVH between 2006 and 2011:
(a) Is the Defendant vicariously liable for the actions of those persons who perpetrated the abuse?
(b) Is the Defendant a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998?
(c) What are the appropriate levels of (i) general damages, (ii) past losses, (iii) future losses, and (iv) if appropriate, Human Rights Act damages for the Claimants?
90. Recognised Overseas Self Invested International Pensions (ROSIIP)
Date of order: 22 June 2012
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
Lead solicitors: Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP, 21 Wilson Street, London EC2M 2TD (contact: Simon Whitehead, 020 7826 4581)
Defining issues
Should the Claimant be granted permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to assess the Claimant to tax upon the transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP [Recognised Overseas Self Invested International Pensions] while ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s list of QROPS [qualifying recognised overseas penion scheme]?
Did the Claimant acquire a legitimate expectation that his/her transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP would not attract tax liabilities if ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s published list of QROPS at the date of the transfer and the trustees had received an acceptance letter from HMRC dated 16 November 2006?
Was the decision to assess the Claimant to tax upon the transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP while ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s published list of QROPS contrary to the Claimant’s legitimate expectation (if any) and a breach of public law and/or EU law and/or human rights?
89. Sonae
Date of order: 12 July 2012
Judge: His Honour Judge Stewart QC
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Camps Solicitors
Defining issues
Whether the defendant is liable in negligence, nuisance or for breach of statutory duty
Whether the claimants were exposed to smoke, debris, dust, fumes or chemicals from the defendant’s fire (referred to hereafter as ‘smoke’)
Whether the smoke from the defendant’s fire caused the claimants’ injuries by reason of the claimants exposure to it
What symptoms have been/were sustained by individuals who can prove exposure to the smoke from the defendant’s fire
The nature of possible actionable injury and causation thereof
What guidelines should apply to awards of general damages in respect of any injuries sustained by the claimants.
88. PIP Breast Implant
Date of order: 17 April 2012
Judge: Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry, Mercantile Court
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors
Defining issues
Whether, if it is established that the implants (defined in paragraph 1 above) were implanted in the claimant pursuant to a contract for the transfer of goods within the meaning of section 1 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 [SOGSA] and/or pursuant to a contract of sales of goods within the meaning of section 1of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 [SGA] to which the defendant (or in the case of an insurer, its insured) was the other contracting party, any of the implied terms pursuant to SOGSA and/or SGA regarding description, satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose were breached.
87. Shared Appeciation Mortgages (SAMs)
Date of order: 5 October 2009
Judge: Mr Justice Mann
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: RWP Solicitors Ltd, Meadow House, 22 Reading Road, Pangbourne, RG8 7LY
Defining issues
Can the questions of (1) the fairness or unfairness of a term arising under Regulation 4(1) of the 1994 Regulations and (2) the fairness or unfairness of a relationship under section 140A of the 1974 Act be determined by reference to the Common Circumstances alone, and without reference to the individual Circumstances of each case, having regard in particular to section 140B(9) of the 1974 Act?
Are the Relevant Provisions in the SAM [shared appreciation mortgage] Loan Agreements in plain and intelligible language within the meaning of Regulation 3(2) of the 1994 Regulations?
If the answer to Issue (2) is “yes”, are the Relevant Provisions exempt from assessment for fairness under the 1994 Regulations by virtue of Regulation 3(2) because they either define the main subject matter of the contract or concern the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services sold or supplied?
If the answer to Issue (2) or (3) is “no”, having regard to the Unfairness Allegations (to the extent that they are proved at trial):
(a) Is the court in a position to conclude that the Relevant Provisions in the SAM Loan Agreements are unfair (for the purposes of Regulation 4(1) of the 1994 Regulations), having regard to the Common Circumstances but whatever the Individual Circumstances of any particular case might be: and
(b) Does the Court so conclude?
If the answers on Issues (2) and (3) above are “yes”, or if the answer on Issue (4)(a) or (4)(b) above is “no”, then, having regard to the Unfairness Allegations (to the extent that they are proved at trial):
(a) Is the court in a position to conclude that the relationships between the lender and Borrower are unfair (for the purposes of Section 140A of the 1974 Act), having regard to the Common Circumstances but whatever the Individual Circumstances of any particular case might be: and
(b) Does the Court so conclude?
If the answer to Issue (5)(b) is “yes”, can the appropriate remedy under Section 140B be determined having regard to the Common Circumstances but without reference to the Individual Circumstances of each case?
If the answer to Issue (6) is “yes”, what is the appropriate remedy under Section 140B of the 1974 Act?
86. Zimmer Metasul Large Diameter Head and Durom Metal on Metal Hip
Date of order: 3 December 2014
Judge: Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB. DX 53326 Clerkenwell
Defining issues
Whether there was a defect in the Defendant’s product
Whether the damage was caused wholly or partly by a defect in the Defendant’s product
Quantification of Loss
85. Hafod Landfill
Date of order: 22 October 2013
84. Fleetwood
Date of order: 9 December 2012
83. Monckton
Date of order: 11 November 2012
82. Wildriggs Rendering Site
Date of order: 5 May 2011
81. Construction Industry Vetting Information
Date of order: 10 July 2014
Judge: Master Leslie
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead Solicitors: Claimant Solicitors Steering Group –
Guney Clark & Ryan Solicitors, 58 Green Lanes, London N16 9NH
Thompsons Solicitors LLP, Congress House, 23-28 Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW
Leigh Day & Co Solicitors, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB
OH Parsons LLP, Sovereign House, 212-224 Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8PR
Defining issues
(A) Alleged breach of confidence/misuse of private information
Did the Claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information held by the Services Group and/or Consulting Association or any part of it (“the Blacklisting Information”) in relation to: (a) its collection and retention and/or (b) its disclosure?
Was the information confidential?
Did the Defendant and/or any of the Third Parties owe a duty of confidence to the Claimant in respect of the information?
Did the Defendant and/or any of the Third Parties breach or threaten to breach that duty?
(B) Alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)
Who was or were the data controller(s) in respect of any personal data of the Claimants recorded in the filing system held by the Consulting Association within the meaning of section 1(1) of the DPA?
If the Defendants or any of them was/were date controllers of any such personal data, did any such data controller(s) fail to comply with the data protection principles in respect of such personal data contrary to section 4(4) of the DPA?
If any other person(s) (including Mr. Kerr) was/were data controllers of any such personal data: (a) Did any such controller(s) fail to comply with the data protection principles in respect of such personal data contrary to section 4(4) of the DPA; and (b) If so, are the Defendants or any of them vicariously liable, whether on their own account or as representative members of the Consulting Association, for any such breach?
In respect of any such breaches as may be established by the Claimants:
(a) What are the principles applicable to any claim for compensation by the Claimants pursuant to section 13 of the 1998 Act and what is the appropriate measure of damages?
(b) What are the principles applicable to Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd’s claim for an indemnity contribution from the Third Parties in respect of any damages that may be awarded to the Claimants?
(C) Alleged defamation
What are the principles applicable in deciding:
(a) whether the claims are statute-barred (albeit the specific facts will vary from case to case);
(b) whether the publications concerning blacklist entries were made on occasions of qualified privilege; and
(c) whether inclusion on the blacklist was in itself defamatory
(D) Joint wrongdoing
Were the Defendants or any of them party to a common design to misuse confidential and/or private information, to defame and/or to act in breach of statutory duty under the DPA 1998 and, if so, did they perform acts on furtherance of any such common design?
(E) Alleged conspiracy
Were the Defendants or any of them party to an agreement or combination to injure the claimants by unlawful means in relation to the operation of the Services Group and/or the Consulting Association?
Did the Defendants or any of them have an intention to injure the Claimants by participation in any such conspiracy, in particular by denying employment to the Claimants?
Did the operation of the Services Group and/or the Consulting Association involve unlawful means by reason of breaches of the Claimants’ employment rights or of the DPA or breach of confidence or misuse of private information?
(F) Other
In respect of any tort or civil wrong which may be established:
(a) What are the principles applicable to any claim for damages by the Claimants and what is the appropriate measure of damages?
(b) What are the principles applicable to the Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd’s claim for an indemnity/contribution from the Third Parties in respect of any damages may be awarded to the Claimants?
80. DePuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal Hip
Date of order: 31 July 2014
Judge: Master Cook
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London, EC1M 4LB. DX 53326 Clerkenwell.
Defining issues
Whether there was a defect in the Defendant’s product
Whether the damage was caused wholly or partly by a defect in the Defendant’s product
79. Lyme & Wood Landfill Group
Date of order: 21 November 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Bird & Bird LLP, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY
Defining Issues
Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants for nuisance caused by odour emissions from the Lyme & Wood Landfill Site.
Whether the Claimants are entitled to an injunction
78. RBS Rights issue
Date of order: 19 September 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Hildyard
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Bird & Bird LLP, 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP
Defining issues
Whether there were relevant untrue and misleading statements in the Prospectus, within Section 90(1)(b)(i) of FSMA [Financial Services and Markets Act 2000], and if so what they were.
77. CF Arch cru
Date of order: 14 October 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Warren
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Harcus Sinclair, 3 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3AA
Defining issues
Whether by the acts and/or omissions of the Defendant in carrying out or purporting to carry out its role as ACD [authorised corporate director] of each of the CF Arch cru Funds the Defendant: (a) Was in breach of the COLL [Collective Investment Schemes sourcebook] rules and, if so, whether the Claimants, or some of them, have claims in respect of any loss caused by any such breaches pursuant to FSMA [Financial Services and Markets Act 2000] section 138D; (b) owed the Claimants, or some of them, a common law duty of care and, if so, whether the Defendant acted in breach of such duties.
Whether any such breaches as may be established have caused loss to the Claimants and, if so, in what amounts.
76. Visteon UK Ltd
Date of order: 20 December 2012
Judge: Mrs Justice Asplin
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing Court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Thompsons Solicitors LLP, Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LW. Telephone: 020 7290 0054. Reference: Kate Fox.
Defining Issues
(a) Whether the Ford Motor Company Limited (“Ford”) made statements during the period January 2000 to 1 April 2001 in connection with the transfer of the Claimants’ employment (or of the employment of the former employee of Ford to whom the Claimant’s claim relates) from the Defendant to Visteon UK Limited (“Visteon UK”), to the effect that the Claimants’ accrued pension benefits would be as secure in the Visteon UK Pension Plan as they would have been if they remained in the Ford Hourly Paid Contributory Pension Scheme and the Ford Salaried Contributory Pension Scheme;
(b) Whether such statements, alleged to have been promulgated by Ford via Visteon UK or reported by trade unions, are attributable to, or otherwise the responsibility of, Ford;
(c) Whether Ford owed a duty of care in tort to the Claimants to take reasonable care that such statements were not inaccurate or misleading and/or to correct any misleading impression they created;
(d) Whether the statements made were inaccurate or misleading, in breach of the Ford’s duty of care.
75. Iraqi Civilian Employees
Date of order: 12 July 2010
Judge: The Senior Master
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division of The High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, of Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB
Defining issues
All Claims are brought by, or on behalf of, former Iraqi employees of the Defendants in Iraq, and all those contracted via third parties to offer services to the Defendants in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 and seek damages from one or more of the Defendants alleged injuries and/or financial losses caused by the alleged failure of one or more of the Defendants to adequately protect them or their Deceased relatives from risk of threats and/or injury from those opposed to the Defendants’ presence in Iraq.
Defining issues to be considered include: Is the law of Iraq or the law of England & Wales the applicable law for determining: (i) liability; (ii) limitation; (iii) quantum in this matter?
74. Stamp Taxes
Date of order: 21 October 2010
Judge: Mr Justice Roth
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP, 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6DX. DX138213 Covent Garden 2. Telephone: 0207 804 1455. Reference: Mark Whitehouse.
Defining issues
The litigation concerns claims that, in specified circumstances, the 1.5% stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax charges which arise on an issue or transfer of chargeable securities to clearance or depositary services (pursuant to sections 67, 70 and 93 of the Finance Act 1986) are contrary to European Union law.
The litigation also relates to the remedies available to the claimants (including consideration of issues of limitation and/or the effect of any applicable statutory regime in domestic law which permits recovery of stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax) if, as claimed, the charges are contrary to European Union law in the circumstances specified.
73. Manchester Children’s Homes (No.2)
Date of order: 27 July 2010
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Irwin (Nominated Trial Judge) District Judge Fairclough and District Judge Gosnell
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald, 37 Station Road, Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire, SK8 5AF. Reference: 100252/PG/PG.
Defining issues
In respect of common or related issues of fact or law:
Alleged personal injury of Claimants arising out of abuse, maltreatment lack of care and assaults carried out by the Defendants’ servants or agents during the period Claimants were resident at any children’s home managed or controlled by Manchester City Council.
72. Norton Aluminium
Date of order: 26 May 2010
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Flaux
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court Of Justice, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Hugh James of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Stree, Cardiff CF10 1DY. Reference: EGE/GL/NOR324/1.
Defining issues
Whether for the period beginning on 26th February 2002 the Claimants’ complaints of nuisance as a result of phenolic, sulphurous or other odurs, noise, smoke abd fumes and particulate matter/dust are complaints about emissions caused by the Defendant as a result of the management and operation of its foundry business at Norton Canes, Cannock , Staffordshire. (2 other common or related issues of fact or law are included.)
71. Linkwise
Date of order: 19 June 2008
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice MacDuff
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Russell Jones & Walker- 11th Floor, The McLaren Building, 35 Dale End, Birmingham B4 7LN. Reference: RCL/CQS/Linkwise/604759.2.
Defining issues
Whether the Linkwise furniture supplied by the Defendants to the Claimants was “defective” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and/or not “of satisfactory quality” within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Action 1982 (3 other points in respect of common or related issues of fact or law).
70. Opiate Dependant Prisoners (No.2)
Date of order: 21 July 2009
Judge: The Senior Master
Court: Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Messrs Bhatt Murphy of 27 Hoxton Square, London N1 6NN (claimants’ solicitors)
Defining issues
Did the system operate in the relevant prisons or any of them at any material time (and if so which and when) of (i) stopping the community prescribed opiate maintenance prescriptions of opiate dependant prisioners and (ii) offering them only a detoxification regime? etc.
69. Westmill Landfill
Date of order: 27 March 2009
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Coulson
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY. Telephone: 0209 2022 4871.
Defining issues
Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in respect of odour emissions from Westmill Landfill site.
68. Seroxat
Date of order: 29 October 2008
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors (Harmful Products Department) of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY
Defining issues
Does Seroxat have a capacity to cause adverse effects consequent upon or following discontinuance (withdrawl) such as prevent or make more difficult the ability of users to discontinue, withdrawal from or remain free from taking Seroxat to a greater extent than all other Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).
67. North Wales Children’s Homes
Date of order: 25 May 1999
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Uppal Taylor of 10 Bridgeford Road, Nottingham NG2 6AB. DX 10065 Nottingham
Defining issues
Claims brought by Claimants claiming damages for personal injury arising out of alleged abuse maltreatment and assaults perpetrated against them whilst they were in the care of various children’s homes.
66. Ocensa Pipeline
Date of order: 24 September 2008
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB
Defining issues
(Subject to sub-categorisation of cases which may become necessary in the future),
Is the law of Columbia, or England & Wales the applicable law for determination of (i) liability, (ii) limitation & (iii) quantification of loss and damage
Did the Defendant owe the Claimants a duty of care in relation to the design and construction and maintenance of the oil pipeline between the Cusiana-Cupiagua oilfields and the port of Covenas in Columbia (the Ocensa Pipeline)
If a duty of care was owed, what was the standard of care owed? etc.
65. MSC Napoli
Date of order: 9 June 2008
Judge: Mr Justice Steel
Court: Admiralty and Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division (of the Royal Courts of Justice)
Managing court: Admiralty and Commercial Court (Royal Courts of Justice)
Lead solicitors: Clyde & Co, Beaufort House, Chertsey Street, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4HA. Telephone: 01483 555 555. Fax: 01483 567 330.
Defining issues
Whether Defendants breached any obligation or duty they were under contract, tort, bailment, under the Hague or Hague-visby Rules so as to cause MSC Napoli to suffer structural damage and water ingress on 18/1/07 which led to the vessel being deliberately beached off the Devon Coast 20/1/07.
64. Powertrain
Date of order: 10 October 2007
Judge: His Honour Judge MacDuff QC
Court: Birmingham County Court
Managing court: Birmingham County Court
Lead solicitors: Rowley Ashworth Solicitors of St John’s House, St John’s Square, Wolverhampton WV2 4BH. Telephone: 01902 771551. Reference: KDL/SJ/17166/2129/ Various Claimants.
Defining issues
Whether the defendants is liable for the onset, development aggravation of asthma, alveolitis and other respiratory complaints arising out of exposure to contaminated metal working fluid and/or pollution at Powertrain.
63. St William’s
Date of order: 5 September 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC
Court: Dewsbury District Registry
Managing court: Dewsbury District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Jordans Solicitors of Grainstore, Woolpacks Yard, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF1 2SG
Defining issues
Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment, assults and negligence to the Claimants, carried out by Defendants employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were in the care of the Defendants at the St William’s School.
62. Miner’s Knee
Date of order: 21 December 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Grenfell
Court: Leeds County Court
Managing court: Leeds County Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors of Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue de Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD and Irwin Mitchell of Sheffield for the purpose of service and receipt of documents.
Defining issues
To follow common or related issues of fact or law in respect of the alledged liability of the National Coal Board and/or British Coal Corporation (NCB/BCC) their successors the Department for Trade & Industry (DTI) for chronic knee injury suffered by their employees as a result of underground work in mines between 1949 and 1994, where chronic knee injury means diabling symptoms of the knee joint(s) resulting from damage to the menisci and/or osteoarthritis, but does not include bursitis.
61. Atomic Veterans
Date of order: 16 July 2007
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Divison, Central Office
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Central Office
Lead solicitors: Rosenblatt Solicitors, 9-13 St Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AF. DX 493 London/Chancery Lane. Telephone: 0207 955 0880. Reference: CJH/mmd/AT03-1.
Defining issues
Upon claims brough by thos atomic veterans (whether civilian or military) who participated in the British programme of testing of nuclear explosive devices between 1952-1958 set out in Master Particulars of Claim.
60. Soviva Hotel
Date of order: 2 November 2006
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Gibbs
Court: Birmingham District Registry
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell Solicitors of Imperial house, 31 Temple Street, Birmingham B2 5QB. DX 13030 Birmingham. Telephone: 0870 1500 100. Reference: PB.H/CG/(SSC)/EAT/SOVTUN/Dawson & Others/FIR.
Defining issues
Upon the claims brought by customers of the Defendants the following issues of fact arise:
To determine whether the scope of the Defendants’ (First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd) obligations in contract and/or tort and /or under statutory regulations; Whether the Defendants or its suppliers of services were in breach of those obligations; If so whether the Defendants’ breaches of those obligations caused the Claimants to suffer injury; In the event that the Defendants are liable to the Claimants quantification of damages.
59. VAT Interest Cars
Date of order: 28 June 2007
Judge: Mr Justice Henderson
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: McGrigors LLP, 5 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7BA. DX 227 Chancery Lane. Telephone: 0207 054 2500. Reference: Jason Collins.
Defining issues
To determine whether the claimants, being motor vehicle dealers who made successful claims for the refund of VAT for periods between 1973 and 1996, are entitled to a remedy to restore them to the position that they would have been in had they not paid overpaid VAT; and if so, is that remedy to be effected by a) the payment of money to represent the difference between simple interest already paid by HM Revenue & Customs and compound interest or b) some other remedy, and, if so, what?
58. Abidjan Personal Injury
Date of order: 12 March 2007
Judge: Master Turner
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Martyn Day of Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB. Telephone: 0207 650 1234.
Defining issues
The Litigation conerns claims that claimant’s have sustained an injury as a result of alledged exposure to materials originating from the vessel, Probo Koala, which discharged at Abidjan on the 19th-20th August 2006.
57. St William’s
Date of order: 5 September 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC
Court: Dewsbury District Registry
Managing court: Dewsbury District Registry
Lead solicitors: Jordans Solicitors, The Grainstore, Woolpacks Yard, Wakefield WF1 2SG. Telephone: 01924 387 110. Fax: 01924 379 113. DX 15031 Wakefield. Reference: DAG/St William’s.
Defining issues
Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment, assaults and negligence to the Claimants, carried out by the Defendants’ employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were in the care of the Defendants at the St William’s School, Market Weighton, East Yorkshire.
56. Parkwood
Date of order: 23 August 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Bullimore
Court: Sheffield District Registry
Managing court: The Technology and Construction Court, Sheffield District Registry
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors, Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue de Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD. Telephone: 01685 371 122. Fax: 01685 350 325. DX 53401 Merthyr Tydfil. Reference: Neil Stockdale [NAS/SF/PAR780/1].
Defining issues
Whether the Defendant [Viridor Waste Mangement Ltd] is liable to the Claimants in provate nuisance by reason of malodours, litter, dust, scavenging birds, flies and other pests from the landfill site at Parkwood, Sheffield
55. Lincoln Prison
Date of order: 3 August 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Inglis
Court: Lincoln County Court
Managing court: Lincoln County Court
Lead solicitors: Sills & Betteridge, 46 Silver Street, Lincoln LN2 1ED. DX 11025 Lincoln. Telephone: 01522 510 463. Fax: 01522 510 463. Reference: SRW.HW.58821-3.
Defining issues
This Order applies to the following GLO [Group Litigation Order] issues in proceedings brought by prisoners or former prisoners against the Home Office arising out of a disturbance at Lincoln Prison on 23rd and 24th October 2002:
(1) The nature, extent and scope of any duty owed by the Defendants to the Claimants and whether such duty was discharged in the circumstances of the case
(2) Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that, in the event of a riot or disturbance, prisoners in different parts of the prison other than E Wing (the wing where vulnerable prisoners were located) would be targeted or be the subject of threats or violence
(3) Whether the keys or locks installed at the time of the riot in October 2002 were reasonable and adequate to discharge the duty of care owed to the Claimants
(4) Whether the failure to implement improvements in security recommended in May 2002 (principally the installation of KR locks at key points in the prison including access to residential accommodation in the event of an ordinary lock compromise) amounted to a breach of duty
(5) Whether there was any, or any adequate, contingency emergency evacuation plan for E Wing and whether any lack of, or a failure to implement, such a plan amounted to a breach of duty
(6) If the Defendants were in breach of duty in respect of issues (3) or (4) or (5), whether the outcome for (i) the Claimants on E Wing and (ii) the Claimants on other wings would have been different if the keys or locks installed had been adequate, or an adequate contingency emergency evacuation plan had been implemented
(7) The nature and extent of any duty to provide follow up counselling or psychiatric intervention for the Claimants
(8) If there was such a duty whether it was breached
(9) Whether the Claimants establish physical or psychiatric injury and causation
(10) Whether Articles 2 or 3 are engaged and whether they were violated. Whether a human rights claim (if limitation can be overcome) adds anything to the substantive allegations.
54. Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) Damages
Date of order: 21 June 2006
Court: Queen’s Bench Division (on transfer from Chancery Division)
Managing court: Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: LA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP, 3 Noble Street, London
EC2V 7EE. DX 33866 London Finsbury Square. Telephone: 08700 111 111. Reference: Michael Anderson.
Defining issues
To determine
A: whether
(i) the raising of an assessment(s) to value added tax (“VAT”) and/or
(ii) the refusal to pay an amount claimed by way of repayment of value addede tax and/or
(iii) the delaying of the making of a repayment of value added tax pending verification of the claim or other administrative measure and/or
(iv) the setting off of an amount due by way of repayment of value added tax
in respect of transactions which gave rise to a valid VAT repayment claim but which the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs decided formed or may have formed part of a Missing Trader Intra Community fraud and, to that extent, fell outside the scope of VAT, was in breach of the Sixth EC Council Directive 77/338/EEC (“the Sixth Directive”);
B: whether the aforesaid actions were in breach of any other principles or provisions of European Community Law;
C: in so far as the aforesaid actions were in breach of the Sixth Directive or any other principles or provisions of European Community Law, whether any such breadh falls within the scope of the principles arising out of Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357).
53. Corby
Date of order: 14 February 2006
Judge: Mr Justice Akenhead
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Collins Solicitors, 20 Station Road, Watford, Hertfordshire WD17 1AR. DX 51516 Watford 2
Defining issues
Law:
To determine whether in the management and execution of land reclamation contracts which involved toxic waste which included heavy metals, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and dioxins in Corby, Northamptonshire between about 1985 and 1999, the Defendant (Corby Borough Council) owed a duty to the Claimants to take reasonable care to prevent the airbourne exposure of the Claimants’ mothers to such toxic waste durnig the embryonic stage of pregnancy.
Fact:
(i) In the event that any such duty was owed, whether the Defendant was in breach of that duty and, if so, in respect of which contracts, which sources of airbourne contamination, which contaminants, at which times and which geographical areas relevant to those Claimants on the Register such airbourne contamination extended to.
(ii) Whether any such breach had the ability to cause upper and or lower limb defects to the Claimants of the type complained of.
(iii) Whether any alleged loss arising out of such breach was forseeable.
52. Mogden
Date of order: 21 December 2005
Judge: Mr Justice Ramsey
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James, Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue De Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD. DX 53401 Merthyr Tydfil. Reference: NAS/SL/MOG25/1.
Defining issues
To determine whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in respect of odour emissions and / or in respect of mosquitoes from the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.
51. Fetal Anti Convulsant (FAC)
Date of order: 25 August 2005
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court, Master Leslie
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell, Riverside east, 2 Millsands, Sheffield, S3 8DT
Defining issues
Each Claimant alleges that his or her Mother was prescribed with, and ingested anti-convulsant medication containing sodium valporate while pregnant with the Claimant, and the medication prescribed and ingested during such pregnancy included a sodium valporate product, whether or not any other anti convulsant product was also prescribed and ingested during such pregnancy, and that the product or products were defective within the meaning of sections 2 and 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and article 4 of the EU Directive 85/374/EEC.
50. DePuy Hylamer
Date of order: 8 August 2005
Judge: Senior Master
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, 25 St John’s Lane, London, EC1M 4LB
Defining issues
Claimants were fitted with a Hylamer Ogee Acetular Cup during hip replacement surgery, and it is alleged in each case that the hip replacement has subsequently failed and that the Product was defective pursuant to sections 2 & 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and that its safety was less than persons generally were entitled to expect. The earlier failure of the hip replacement is asserted by the Claimants to have been caused or materially contributed to by a defect in the Product, namely that it had a greater tendency to wear than was appropriate in the light of its intended purpose and other related factors.
49. Dexion Deafness
Date of order: 28 April 2005
Judge: His Honour Judge Farnworth
Court: Luton County Court
Managing court: Luton County Court, His Honour Judge Farnworth. District Judge Gill or District Judge Hewitson-Brown
Lead solicitors: Pictons, 28 Dunstable Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 1DY
Defining issues
Matters arising out of Claimants personal injury (industrial deafness) arising out of the Claimants’ employment with the Defendants at their premises at Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire specifically relating to the Claimant’s deafness caused by excessive noise at the Defendants premises from 1963 to 2003.
48. Torremolinos Beach Club
Date of order: 21 April 2005
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Smith Partnership, 4th Floor, Celtic House, Heritage Gate, Friary Street, Derby, DE1 1LS
Defining issues
Pain, suffering and loss of amenity and/or diminution in value and/or loss of enjoyment of holidays and/or losses and expenses sustained by them during their stays at the Hotel Torremolinos Beach Club Hotel between October 2000 and July 2002 as a result of the Defendants’ alleged breach of contracts, the Defendants’ and/or suppliers of other services failure to properly perform their obligations to the Claimants in accordance with the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours regulations 1992.
47. Staffordshire Children’s Homes
Date of order: 11 February 2005
Judge: Mr Justice Gibbs
Court: Birmingham District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Birmingham District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division, His Honour Judge MacDuff QC
Lead solicitors: Smith Partnership, 4th Floor, Celtic House, Heritage Gate, Friary Street, Derby, DE1 1LS
Defining issues
Maltreatment, sexual, physical and