Hutson & Anor, The Personal Representatives of v Tata Steel UK Ltd

Extensions of time in group litigation are exceptional because parties require certainty for effective case management. The court must nevertheless balance compliance with the timetable against the consequences of excluding potentially meritorious claims. Relevant considerations include prejudice, disruption, expense, the seriousness and explanation of the default, and the need to enforce court orders.

A claim entered on a group register by a deceased person may be a nullity, but that does not prevent the estate from commencing a properly constituted subsequent claim. Where relief from sanctions is assumed to apply, the Denton stages remain relevant, with particular weight given to efficient and proportionate litigation and compliance. The applications were granted because the defaults had not materially disrupted the litigation or caused real prejudice, whereas refusal would probably deny substantive justice.

The claimants sought extensions of time in a Group Litigation Order concerning claims for occupational exposure to harmful dust and fumes in the steel industry. Registration required the requisite probate or administration formalities to have been completed.

Application 1 concerned twelve claims that missed an extended registration deadline. Application 2 concerned eight further claims, including three in which claims had been entered on the register before the formalities were completed. The defendant argued that some purported claims were nullities and that the defaults should be assessed by the stringent approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3926. The central issues were whether time could be extended and how the discretion should be exercised.

1. The applications were granted. Time for the ten Application 1 claims in which the formalities had been completed was extended to 7 February 2019. Time for the claims of Allen and Pawlyszyn was extended to 4.00 pm on 28 February 2019, subject to strict compliance with unless orders. Application 2 was granted, extending time for entry of the remaining claims to 7 February 2019.

2. The court adopted the approach stated in Pearce v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and ors [2015] EWHC 3775: cut-off dates in group litigation are essential for certainty and case management, and extensions should not be regarded as the norm. That consideration must be balanced against the risk that a mechanistic application of the deadline will exclude residual claims and further disrupt the group litigation.

3. The relevant balance favoured an extension. The future timetable was not jeopardised, refusal would not produce a discernible saving of expense, real prejudice to the defendant was not established, and refusal would probably deprive individual claimants of substantive justice. The need to enforce court orders remained relevant but did not outweigh those factors.

4. The court accepted the conclusions in Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (No 2) [2016] EWHC 3005 that, under the relevant GLO, a claimant became a party only on entry of the claim on the register and that CPR 3 could not cure a purported claim that was a nullity. That did not prevent a properly constituted fresh claim, although such a claim could potentially be struck out as an abuse of process.

5. For Application 2, the court assumed without deciding that the stringent Denton approach applied as though the applications were for relief from sanctions. The defaults were serious and significant and resulted from culpable oversight. However, they had not materially prevented efficient or proportionate conduct of the litigation, there was no history of non-compliance, and the third-stage assessment of all the circumstances decisively favoured relief.

6. The claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the applications on the standard basis.