Hutson & Ors v Tata Steel UK Ltd

Appointment of additional lead solicitors in group litigation is governed by the overriding objective and the court’s case-management discretion. The applicant bears the burden of showing that appointment would further the efficient, fair and proportionate conduct of the litigation. Increased costs, duplication, delay, disagreement and demands on court resources weigh against appointment. The number or geographical distribution of an applicant’s clients may be relevant, but gives no entitlement to lead-solicitor status. Existing organisational arrangements should ordinarily be maintained where they provide effective and consistent management, subject to issue-by-issue control under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

Claimants alleging industrial disease from exposure to fumes and dust in the steel industry brought claims within a Group Litigation Order. Irwin Mitchell LLP and Hugh James were appointed as lead solicitors. Collins Solicitors applied to be added as an additional lead firm, relying on its experience, its client base and the number of proposed claimants connected with Ravenscraig in Scotland.

The existing lead solicitors opposed the application, citing disagreement over eligibility criteria, expert evidence, case management and the likely effect on costs and the orderly progress of the litigation. The central issue was whether appointing Collins would further the overriding objective.

1. Application refused. Collins Solicitors were not appointed as additional lead solicitors.
2. Under CPR 19.13(c) and Practice Direction 19B paragraph 2.2, the court has a broad discretion to appoint lead solicitors in group litigation. An applicant seeking appointment against the reasoned opposition of existing lead solicitors ordinarily bears the burden of showing that inclusion would further the overriding objective.
3. The court may weigh the likely effect of appointment on the aggregate costs of the group, duplication of effort, delay, misunderstandings, disagreements, consistency of organisation and demands on court resources. Enhancing solicitors’ costs revenue is not itself a component of the overriding objective.
4. Existing disagreements between Collins and the appointed lead solicitors concerning eligibility criteria, expert evidence and case control demonstrated a real risk that adding Collins would impair coherent and proportionate management. The established and successful working relationship between Irwin Mitchell and Hugh James in similar litigation supported maintaining the existing structure.
5. The size of Collins’ prospective client group and the presence of Scottish claimants were relevant but not determinative. Appointment is not an exercise in proportional representation. The existing firms’ resources and expertise were sufficient to address Scottish claims if appropriate.
6. Concerns about future management could be dealt with through the court’s case-management powers under CPR Part 3 and CPR Part 19.13, together with CPR Part 46.6 on costs. Costs of the CMC and the application were costs in the case, but recoverable claimants’ costs were not to include Collins’ costs of its application.
7. The court also invited the parties to reconsider whether claimants entered on the group register had issued claim forms as required by Practice Direction B paragraph 6.1A. No immediate determination was made on that procedural issue.