X Y Z v Various companies (PIP Breast Implant Litigation)

Part 18 does not permit a claimant to require disclosure of a defendant’s insurance arrangements merely because they may affect enforcement of judgment. Insurance information is not ordinarily a matter in dispute in the proceedings.

However, the court’s case-management power under CPR 3.1(2)(m) may require a defendant to provide the court with information about whether it has insurance sufficient to fund the litigation through trial and any appeal. That information may be necessary to prevent waste of court resources and to permit proportionate case management. The power does not extend, on these facts, to requiring disclosure of insurance sufficient to meet damages or costs.

Nearly 1,000 claimants pursued damages arising from allegedly defective PIP breast implants. The proceedings included claims against private hospitals and related claims concerning suppliers, credit providers and surgeons.

The claimants applied for information about Transform Medical Group’s insurance. They sought to establish whether Transform could fund the litigation, satisfy any judgment for damages and meet any costs order. The application relied principally on CPR Part 18 and CPR 3.1(2)(m). The central issue was whether either provision empowered the court to order the information.

1. The application was allowed in part. The court refused to order Transform to disclose whether its insurance was sufficient to meet damages or costs, but ordered information directed to its ability to fund the litigation through trial and any appeal.

2. Part 18 was unavailable. Insurance cover was not a matter in dispute in the proceedings, and information about it did not relate to an issue requiring determination. The court accepted the reasoning in West London Pipeline and Storage v Total (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1296 (Comm) and declined to follow the broader approach in Harcourt v Griffin [2007] EWHC 1500 (QB).

3. CPR 3.1(2)(m) conferred a distinct case-management power. Whether Transform could fund participation in the litigation to trial and any appeal directly affected the court’s ability to manage the group litigation, preserve the timetable and allocate an appropriate share of court resources. The court could therefore require a witness statement addressing that question.

4. The power did not extend to information about whether Transform could satisfy an award of damages or costs. Those matters concerned enforcement rather than case management. The court also rejected the suggestion that the order would give the claimants an unfair advantage or prejudice Transform.

5. The precise wording of the statement and the person required to provide it were reserved for further submissions. The intended deadline was 4pm on 28 November 2013.