Abdel-Kader and ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and ors
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Fontaine |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: QB-2020-004666 and ors as listed in Annex 1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 2006 (QB)
SENIOR Master Fontaine
Case Nos: QB-2020-004666 and ors as listed in Annex 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
GRENFELL TOWER LITIGATION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Gerard McDermott QC, Richard Hermer QC and Nick Brown (instructed by Bindmans LLP and other firms as listed in Annex 1) for the Bindmans group and Bindmans sub-group of Claimants
Susan Rodway QC and Shaman Kapoor (instructed by Bishop Lloyd & Jackson) for the BLJ group of Claimants
Michael Rawlinson QC and Max Archer (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors) for the Firefighter Claimants
Christopher Walker (instructed by Pattinson & Brewer) for the Senior Firefighter Claimants
Theo Huckle QC and Christopher Johnson (instructed by Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP) for the Police Officer Claimants
Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC, Meghann McTague, Lucinda Spearman and Isabel Barter (instructed by DWF Law) for Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and anor
Roger Stewart QC and George MacDonald (instructed by DLA Piper) for Arconic Architectural Products SAS and ors
Craig Orr QC and Daniel Benedyk (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for Celotex Ltd and Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd
Aidan Christie QC and Madeleine Shanks (instructed by Clyde & Co) for CEP Architects
Caroline Greenfield (instructed by Weightmans) for CS Stokes and Associates Ltd.
Sean Brannigan QC (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for Exova (UK) Ltd
No attendance or representation for Harley Facades Ltd or Harley Curtain Wall Ltd (in liquidation)
No attendance or representation for Howmet Aerospace Inc
Geraint Webb QC and Amie Francis (instructed by Gowling QLG (UK) LLP) for Kingspan Insulation Ltd
Andrew Rigney QC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for Rydon Maintenance Ltd
Ognjen Miletic (instructed by RPC) for Studio E Architects Ltd
Rob Harland (instructed by Government Legal Department) for The Home Office
Paul Cowan (instructed by Government Legal Department) for The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Edward Harrison (instructed by Cooley (UK) LLP) for Whirlpool Company Polska Sp.z.o.o, and ors
William Norris QC, Caroline Allen and Felicity Carter (instructed by General Counsel's Department) for The London Fire Commissioner
Kiril Waite (instructed by In House Legal Department) Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Hearing dates: 26 and 27 April 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
SENIOR Master Fontaine
INDEX
| Page | Paragraph |
| Introduction | 1 – 6 |
| BLJ Application for judgment | 7 – 20 |
| BLJ Claimants' application for interim costs | 21 – 30 |
| Applications concerning a stay of the proceedings | |
| Summary of Submissions of the Parties | 31 – 88 |
| Discussion | 89 – 108 |
| Application to adjourn consideration of GLO | 109 – 111 |
This was the second Case Management Conference listed in claims brought by various Claimants against the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kensington (“RBKC”) and Chelsea Tenants Management Association (“TMO”) and other Defendants (only RBKC and TMO are Defendants to all claims). A list of all claims subject to this judgment and the categorisation of claims is attached as Annex 1. A list of abbreviations used for the parties is attached as Annex 2. Documents that were before the court are referred to in this judgment by reference to the electronic bundles filed as follows: Hearing Bundle – HB tab number/page number; Authorities bundle – AB tab number/page number.
The following witness statements were filed relevant to the issues determined in this judgment:
On behalf of RBKC
i) Fifth witness statement of Peregrine Edward Hill dated 5 April 2022 (“Hill 5”);
ii) Seventh witness statement of Peregrine Edward Hill dated 22 April 2022 (“Hill 7”);
On behalf of the ER Claimants
iii) First witness statement of Louise Clare Taylor dated 12 April 2022 (“Taylor 1”);
iv) Second witness statement of Louise Clare Taylor dated 19 April 2022 (“Taylor 2”);
On behalf of the BLJ Claimants
v) Fourth witness statement of Rachel Swinnerton dated 12 April 2022 (“Swinnerton 4”);
All claims which are the subject of this judgment arise as a result of the fire on 14 June 2017 which destroyed Grenfell Tower in West London, (“the Tower”) caused loss of life to 72 people, and injury, suffering and trauma to many residents, occupiers or visitors who were in the Tower or the vicinity of the Tower, as well as to emergency responders dealing with the fire and its aftermath (“the Grenfell Fire”). There are multiple claimant groups in the numerous claims against some or all of the Defendants, with 1,134 issued claims and approximately 1,125 Claimants in total: Hill 5 §4 HB 59/536.
The claims were stayed by order of the court on issue. At the first Case Management Conference in July 2021 a further 9 month stay was granted (see Abel-Kader and ors v RBKC and ors [2021] EWHC 2016 (QB) HB 53/511).
A number of applications were before the court, most of which were by consent and dealt with at the hearing. A disclosure application by the PO Claimants against the CPM was dealt with separately and judgment handed down on 13 May 2022 (see Hart and ors v RBKC and ors [2022] EWHC 1090 (QB).
The following issues/applications are dealt with in this judgment:
i) The BLJ Claimants' application for judgment in 53 claims;
ii) The BLJ Claimants' application for RBKC to pay interim costs on account in respect of liability in 53 claims;
iii) RBKC's application dated 29 March 2022 for an extension of the previous stay for a period of 12 months;
iv) The BLJ Claimants' application dated 5 April 2022 to lift the stay on their claims;
v) The BLJ Claimants' application dated 5 April 2022 for RBKC to serve and file defences and for a CMC to be listed;
vi) an oral application by the ER Claimants to impose conditions on any stay of 12 months granted by the court as follows:
a) a six month ‘break clause’ for a further CMC to be listed;
b) appointment of a lead defendant;
c) permission to investigate liability issues during the stay.
vii) application by RBKC and other parties to adjourn consideration of a GLO and appointment of a Managing Judge
I will deal with those applications in that order.
BLJ application for judgment
Summary of the BLJ Claimants' Submissions
The BLJ Claimants seek judgment to be entered in a total number of 53 claims where RBKC have admitted a duty of care and breach of that duty, and where the Claimants have suffered some loss.
The BLJ Claimants accept that it is a necessary component of liability that a Claimant who has suffered a breach of duty must have suffered some loss by reason of that breach. The BLJ Claimants have all pleaded their claims and served Particulars of Claim with schedules of loss in all claims in August 2021 with the permission of the court. A number of medical reports have been served and these will continue to be served as they are obtained. These deal with the issue of causation as well as condition and prognosis. There are also losses for special damage for which causation is not dependant on injury and therefore do not require medical reports to be served. There are no generic issues in the quantification of loss and each case will have to be decided on its own facts. There is no reason therefore why judgment cannot be entered on liability in the cases where the admissions have been made and schedules of loss have been served. It is obvious that some loss or damage must have been suffered and RBKC have recognised this by making interim payments on account of damages.
The Claimants are fully ready to proceed with any remaining issues on liability. In the light of the admissions the claims of misfeasance in public office no longer holds centre ground.
Those Claimants to whom no admission of owing a duty has been made are entitled to an explanation as to why this is the case.
Summary of the submissions of RBKC
RBKC agree to entry of RBKC agree to entry of judgment in nine claims made by the following Claimants where RBKC have admitted a duty of care, breach of duty and causation of some loss or damage:
The estate of Rabeya Begum, deceased
The estate of Mohammed Hanif, deceased
The estate of Mohammed Hamid, deceased
The estate of Husna Begum, deceased
Hanan Cherbika
Yousra Cherbika
Amina J'Bari
Fatima J'Bari
Safar Sarumi.
BLJ's application does not identify on what basis the application for judgment has been made, but it is presumed to be an application for judgment on admissions under CPR 14.3, although the submissions in support are tantamount to a summary judgment application. Judgment cannot be entered in reliance on an admission pursuant to CPR 14.3 unless the admission constitutes a complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Hamon and Others v University College London
...ADR procedure, for example the 12 month stay that I ordered (despite objections by some claimants) in the Grenfell Tower Litigation [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB). iii) Ordering early neutral evaluation even if one of the parties objects, for example Lomax v Lomax [2019] EWCA Civ 1467; [2019] 1 W......
-
Sid-Ali Atmani & Others v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
...5 April 2022 and is ancillary to the judgment relating to issues heard at the case management conference (CMC) on 27 April 2022 at [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB) (“the main judgment”). The same abbreviations and pagination references are used in this judgment as in the main 2 Paragraphs 7–30 of the......