David Wormleighton v Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited

Claims may be consolidated where their facts and issues substantially overlap, even though they are not identical. The court should consider the risk of inconsistent findings, costs, delay, procedural stage, whether the benefits can be achieved by another case-management order, and common representation. Consolidation is particularly appropriate where joint expert evidence can avoid duplication and where urgency makes early resolution important. Liability may be tried as a preliminary issue, with quantum determined separately. The overriding objective and the statutory duty to avoid multiplicity of proceedings support a practical, fact-sensitive approach.

Four mesothelioma claims concerned alleged exposure to asbestos in Asbestolux boards manufactured or supplied by companies in the Cape group. Two claims were brought by representatives of deceased claimants, and two by living claimants with very limited life expectancies. Two claims had been listed for trial, while the others were at earlier procedural stages.

The claimants applied under CPR 3.1(2)(g) for consolidation. They proposed a joint liability trial, with quantum dealt with separately. The defendants opposed consolidation, relying principally on differences in exposure periods, factual circumstances and procedural readiness.

1. Applications granted. The four claims were consolidated under CPR 3.1(2)(g). Liability was ordered to be tried as a separate issue under CPR 3.1(2)(i), during the January 2025 trial window, with a ten-day estimate. The existing Frayne trial listing was vacated.
2. Under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 49(2), and the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 and CPR 1.2, the court should manage proceedings so far as possible to determine disputes finally and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
3. The factors identified in Harrington v Mehta [2023] EWHC 998 (Ch) were applied. They include factual and issue overlap, inconsistent findings, costs and delay, procedural stage, alternative case-management measures, and common representation.
4. The issues need not be identical. Significant overlap is sufficient. Differences in exposure periods, additional defendants, contributory negligence and claim-specific factual issues did not outweigh the common product-liability, knowledge and parent-company responsibility issues. Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 was therefore a common legal issue, although its ultimate application remained to be determined.
5. Consolidation was likely to reduce duplication in engineering and occupational-hygiene evidence, witness evidence, legal submissions and court time. It also reduced the risk of inconsistent findings. The urgency of living mesothelioma claims supported an early joint trial, consistent with Yates v HMRC [2014] EWHC 2311 (QB) and paragraph 7.1 of CPR Practice Direction 49B.
6. A joint trial order under CPR 3.1(2)(h) would not secure the same benefits, particularly the use of joint experts across all claims. The distinct chronological issues in Wormleighton required further case management but did not make consolidation unrealistic. Directions for common statements of case, disclosure, witness evidence and single experts were to be agreed.

First-instance case-management decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.