Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd

An appeal court may join parties from the lower-court proceedings where they are affected by the appeal, and may permit joinder where their proposed arguments extend beyond the existing appeal. The court should not decide hypothetical issues merely because doing so would be convenient in group litigation. Where the scope and practical effect of additional participation cannot be assessed at an interlocutory hearing, questions of costs and the limits of argument may be left to the full appellate court.

The appeal arose from seven test cases in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation. Mrs Baker appealed the dismissal of her noise-induced hearing-loss claim against Quantum Clothing Group Ltd. Meridian and Pretty Polly, defendants in other test cases, applied to be joined as respondents because the proposed appeal might affect the dates from which liability was assessed against textile employers generally. They also wished to challenge findings made against them and related costs orders.

The issues were whether Meridian and Pretty Polly were respondents as of right or should be permitted to become respondents under CPR Part 52.1(3)(e), whether their proposed arguments would exceed the existing appeal, and how the costs of their participation should be dealt with.

1. Application granted. Meridian and Pretty Polly were permitted to be respondents to Mrs Baker’s appeal. They could respond to the existing grounds and, subject to the full court’s control, raise arguments concerning the findings of actual knowledge made against them and the related 10% costs discount.
2. Under CPR Part 52.1(3)(e), a person who was a party below and is affected by the appeal may be a respondent as of right. A person may also be made a party by permission where the appeal court considers that appropriate. Both applicants were materially affected by the broad challenge to the dates of liability.
3. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to decide hypothetical points, even where deciding them would be convenient in group litigation. It was uncertain whether the applicants’ proposed arguments would go beyond the issues properly arising in the Baker and Quantum appeal. That question was left to the full court.
4. All questions of appeal costs were left to the full court. Only that court could assess whether the additional respondents and arguments materially extended the appeal, and whether duplicate legal representation was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the interlocutory applications, Meridian and Pretty Polly were permitted to be respondents to Mrs Baker’s appeal. Costs were reserved to the full court hearing the appeal. The judgment is reported at [2007] EWCA Civ 750.
• Nottingham District Registry: His Honour Judge Inglis decided the underlying test cases and made the relevant costs orders. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.