British Steel Group Litigation: Request For Preliminary Hearings To Determine Limitation Refused

The High Court has refused an application by Tata Steel to have limitation tried as a preliminary issue in respect of a group action alleging historic exposure to dust and fumes at work.

Background

On 2 February 2017, the High Court approved an application for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) submitted by a number of former British Steel workers and family members of deceased workers. It is alleged that the workers were exposed to dust and fumes at work and have subsequently developed occupational diseases.

This action has already been subject to several applications on various issues:

An application to add a firm of solicitors as a lead firm was rejected in 2017. Mr Justice Turner finding that adding another firm of solicitors would increase the aggregate costs bill and lead to a duplication of effort. An application was granted earlier this year adding additional Claimants into the group litigation order (GLO), two months after the previously extended deadline for registration had passed. This "indulgence" was granted after the Claimants persuade the court that adding the additional parties would not increase disclosure obligations significantly. Furthermore any efforts to proceed outside the GLO would be very difficult. Tata Steel ("Tata"), as the successor in title to British Steel, has filed a Generic Defence in which they argued that at least some of the claims are statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980.

In order to address this, Tata applied to have limitation tried as a preliminary issue on lead cases.

Application

The Court has the power to direct that a preliminary issue be heard under CPR 3.1(2)(i) and (j). Tata asked for the Court to use that discretion to consider the issue of limitation on the lead cases.

The time limit in which a claim for personal injury can be brought is 3 years, whether from the date of injury or the date of knowledge as defined in section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, this may be disapplied (per section 33) at the discretion of the Court.

The leading case considering the general principles of when limitation can be disapplied is Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. Tata argued that applying the principles from Carroll demonstrated that they had a strong case on limitation in a significant proportion of the claims. Tata contended that a preliminary hearing would save costs and would minimise automatic prejudice to them by requiring them to deal with the "limitation point and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT