AB and Others v John Wyeth & Brother Ltd and Others (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1993 |
| Date | 26 November 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Balcombe, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Practice - striking out actions in group litigation - cost benefit analysis by the court
Although as a general rule it was inappropriate for the court to enter into a cost benefit analysis in determining whether to strike out actions in group litigation, in a case where any benefit to plaintiffs would be extremely modest taken against the astronomical expense of defending the claims, the court was entitled to strike the actions out.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal brought by the plaintiffs, users of benzodiazepine drugs, against the decisions of Mr Justice Ian Kennedy on October 20, 1992 and March 15, 1993 to strike out the plaintiffs' actions against prescribers of drugs manufactured by the first and second defendants.
Mr Anthony Scrivener, QC and Mr Peter Griffiths for the plaintiffs; Mr Stephen Miller, QC and Miss Sally Smith for the health authorities; Mr Robert Owen, QC and Mr Philip Havers for the general practitioners.
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the appeals raised a point in relation to the power of the court in group litigation to strike out actions pursuant to Order 18, rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Mr Justice Ian Kennedy had struck out the plaintiffs' actions on the basis that they were vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, because the irrecoverable costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the prescribers were out of all proportion to any benefit that the plaintiffs could obtain from the litigation against them.
The gist of the actions was that the drugs lorazepam, (manufactured and marketed by John Wyeth & Brother Ltd as "Ativan" and diazepam, manufactured and marketed by Roche Products Ltd as "Valium", were potentially hazardous as being addictive and induced dependency.
By the time the actions to strike out were made there were in the group litigation about 2,776 actions against Wyeth; 1,676 against Roche and 501 against both.
In a proportionately small number of those actions, prescribers of the drug were joined as defendants. In 19 cases it was the consultant psychiatrist employed by the relevant health authority, for whom the health authority was vicariously liable; in approximately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd
...the overall prospects of success, these claims are "viable" in the sense given to that word by the Court of Appeal in the case of A.B. v John Wyeth & Brother (No. 2) (26 November 1993) 18 BNLR 38; (iii) In deciding at an interlocutory stage of the action what directions should be made for t......
-
Jade Pawley v Whitecross Dental Care Ltd
...I would respectfully endorse and adopt as still being fully applicable what was said by Steyn LJ in AB v John Wyeth & Brothers Ltd (1992) 12 BMLR 50, 61 and quoted by Waller LJ at [15] of Davies: “The procedural powers of a judge in control of a group action are not tied to transitional pro......
-
AB and Others v British Coal Corporation and Another
...have been effected by what may appear to be procedural means alone. It was said in the case of AB v. John Wyeth and Brothers Ltd [1993] 4 Med LR 1 that it is in the nature of Group Litigation that the Court is able to exercise powers which are not ordinarily available to it in a unitary act......
-
Davies and Others v Department of Trade and Industry and another
...Turner in the COPD contribution proceedings and noticed his citation from a judgment of Steyn LJ (as he then was) in AB v John Wyeth [1993] 4 Med LR 1 at page 6 where he said:- "… The procedural powers of a judge in control of a group action are not tied to transitional procedures. Subject ......