Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others: CA 21 Nov 2002

The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had been struck out but it was not agreed what had happened to the individual claims.
Held: In disposing of the group litigation proceedings and order, it did not make sense to allow the individual claims to proceed. That had not been contended for, and should not now be allowed.
Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Carnwath
[2002] EWCA Civ 1644
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedA B and Others v John Wyeth and Brothers Ltd and Others CA 15-Dec-1993
Proceedings claiming damages for the prescription of benzodiazepine were set aside where the possible benefit to the Plaintiffs, even if they succeeded, was vastly outweighed by the costs to the Defendant of defending the action. The court may use a . .
CitedWalkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
CitedBristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another CA 26-Apr-2001
The slip rule could not be used by the court to add second thoughts to a judgment, but could be used by the court to amend the judgment to give effect to the court’s original intention. In this case the effect of an appeal was to restart the running . .
CitedAnkerl v Switzerland ECHR 23-Oct-1996
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1
‘the Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were ‘fair’ . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.178482