The case concerned the management of substantial multi-party actions, and in particular the form of costs orders. The claimants sought a payment of the ‘common costs’ element to be made payable as the appropriate relative common issues were resolved.
Held: The purpose of the new rules was to clarify the sharing of the burden of costs, not to prescribe what orders should be made and when. As to discontinuing claimants, the current form of order should continue. The advantages of amending such orders to crystallise the costs of a discontinuing party were outweighed by the potential injustice.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
Times 15-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2017
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 Section III
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation CA 21-Dec-2001
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries after immunisation with the MMR vaccine. . .
Cited by:
See Also – XYZ and others v Schering Health QBD 29-Jul-2002
The court heard seven lead claims in group litigation against three drug companies in respect of their combined oral contraceptive products. . .
See Also – XYZ v Schering Health Care: Oral Contraceptive Litigation SCCO 31-Mar-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167306