Gary James Webster & Ors v Treloars Trust

A Group Litigation Order is a discretionary case-management tool. The court should require a sufficient number of claimants who seriously intend to proceed and whose claims raise common or related issues of fact or law. It must also understand the proposed GLO issues sufficiently to assess the resources required and apply the overriding objective, including proportionality and the allocation of scarce court resources.

A GLO may be refused where an alternative compensation scheme is available and litigation is not shown to offer better recovery. The refusal does not determine the merits of individual claims. Where claims are issued, ordinary joinder, consolidation and case-management powers may provide an efficient alternative.

The applicants sought a Group Litigation Order under Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules for 63 prospective claims arising from former pupils of Treloar’s College being infected with HIV and/or hepatitis through NHS blood products, together with claims by indirectly infected persons, estates and dependants.

The proposed issues concerned duties of care, possible assault or negligence, breach, causation and limitation. No claim form had been issued. The respondent opposed the application, relying principally on the newly established Infected Blood Compensation Scheme and the absence of evidence that litigation would produce better compensation or justify the substantial resources required for a GLO.

The central issue was whether a GLO was a proportionate and appropriate vehicle for progressing the potential claims.

1. Application dismissed. The decision concerned only whether a GLO was the appropriate case-management vehicle. It expressed no view on the merits of any individual claim and did not prevent claimants from issuing proceedings.

2. The decision to make a GLO is primarily discretionary case management: Alyson Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 928. The court should not make one until it is satisfied that there are enough claimants who seriously intend to proceed and that their claims raise common or related issues of fact and law.

3. The proposed GLO issues were too simplistic and had not adequately addressed the respondent’s criticisms. Clearer issues are necessary so that the court can assess the nature and extent of the resources required. The overriding objective requires justice at proportionate cost, including saving expense, proportionality to the amount and importance of the case, complexity and parties’ financial positions, expedition, fairness and an appropriate share of court resources.

4. The court rejected the contention that refusing a GLO would necessarily create inefficient multiplicity or inconsistent findings. Under CPR 19.1, claimants may be joined in a single claim, and ordinary case-management powers may replicate almost any feature of a GLO: Morris & others v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376, Abbot v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) and Hammon v University College London [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB).

5. The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme was treated as an alternative dispute-resolution route. It was wider than ordinary litigation in some respects, operated without proof of liability, and no evidence showed that any applicant was likely to recover less under the Scheme than through successful litigation. It was therefore inappropriate to commit scarce court resources to a GLO before potential claimants had pursued compensation under the Scheme.

6. The observation concerning exemplary damages was ancillary. Their availability was uncertain; the restrictions identified in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 applied, and claims by deceased estates were subject to the exclusion in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The court expressed no view on whether the proposed profit-making category could be established.