Sandra Hutson v Tata Steel UK Limited

In assessing future costs in group litigation, the court must make the best practical estimate available by focusing on the issues relevant to the particular phase. An agreed scheme may substantially reduce the scope of common work, so future expenditure should reflect the shift towards individual costs. Budgets should not be inflated by speculation about possible common issues, excessive documentation or unnecessarily large hearing bundles. The court may allow a lower figure than claimed where the evidence is limited and the proposed work is unduly pessimistic. The assessment remains capable of later adjustment where genuinely unforeseen issues arise.

The claim formed part of the British Steel Coke Oven Workers Litigation. The court was required to assess proposed future common costs under an agreed scheme to which the claimants had signed up. The disputed categories concerned a further case management hearing, group coordination, and alternative dispute resolution and settlement work.

The court considered the extent to which the scheme had reduced common issues, the likely progress of the litigation, the evidential basis for the claimed figures, and the risk of excessive documentation and speculation.

1. Approach to assessment. The court’s task was to make the best assessment it could of expenditure arising in the relevant phase. The outcome was not determined by a going rate derived from previous hearings, nor were the defendant’s figures treated as the predominant starting point where the parties disputed the boundary between common and individual costs.
2. Effect of the scheme. The agreed scheme had been designed to produce significant savings. It materially limited the scope for common issues, and most future costs were likely to arise individually in the cases of particular claimants. The court took limited account of cases already settled, while recognising that the easier cases might have settled first.
3. Documentation and bundles. Generic documentation concerning provisional damages could properly fall within common costs, but the proposed accumulation of documents and the anticipated hearing bundle were unduly pessimistic. The relevant practice direction supported including no more documents than necessary. The possibility of later claims for provisional damages, including the prospect of once-and-for-all offers, also reduced the proper estimate.
4. Budgets allowed. The claimed £243,100 for the next case management hearing was reduced to £90,000. The claimed £259,280 for group coordination was reduced to £100,000 because it did not adequately reflect the shift from common to individual costs and involved substantial speculation. The claimed £158,504 for ADR and settlement was reduced to £95,000 because there was little solid evidence that the predicted common-cost issues would arise or be significantly expensive. Unforeseen issues could justify a later departure from the budget where appropriate.