Re British Coal Vibration White Finger Group Litigation

The court supervising a group litigation scheme may adapt the scheme’s procedures, including consequential time limits, where this is necessary to control the litigation fairly and efficiently. The power must be exercised by reference to practicability, fairness and the public interest in finality. A shorter limitation period is appropriate where claimants have sufficient existing materials to formulate viable claims, anticipated evidential and funding difficulties are manageable, and the revised period simplifies the scheme without causing substantial prejudice.

The British Coal vibration white finger group litigation was governed by a handling agreement between the claimants’ solicitors’ group and the Department of Trade and Industry. Section 15 provided a limitation amnesty during consideration of claims and for twelve months after final determination. An amendment extended determination until completion of any disputes procedure, but other defendants had not adopted it, creating differing limitation periods.

The defendants sought a uniform six-month period after determination, instead of twelve months. The central issues were whether the court had power to alter Section 15 and, if so, whether the proposed reduction was fair and practicable.

1. Power to amend the scheme. The court had power under the handling agreement, read with its supervisory role in the group litigation, to control the litigation as a whole, including the time within which a subsequent individual claim had to be brought. The observations of Lord Justice Steyn in AB & Others v John Wyatt & Others Limited & Others (1993, Medical Law Reports 1) supported the breadth of that procedural power.
2. Practicability and fairness. The proposed reduction had to be assessed against the likely difficulties facing claimants, including obtaining representation, witness statements, medical and engineering evidence, and costs insurance. In the ordinary viable case, the necessary factual materials would already exist, insurers’ decisions would take weeks rather than months, and medical or engineering issues would not ordinarily prevent timely issue.
3. Public interest and simplicity. Nothing likely to confront individual claimants outweighed the public interest in bringing long-running litigation and its aftermath to an end within the shortest reasonable and practicable period. A uniform period also benefited claimants by replacing the existing patchwork of provisions with a simpler rule.
4. The application was granted. The limitation period in Section 15 of the handling agreement was reduced from twelve months to six months.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerns an application within the supervised group litigation scheme.