David Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm)and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Simon |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 218 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X02148 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 06 February 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 218 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Simon
Case No: HQ11X02148
Mr Patrick Green QC, Mr Matthew Bradley and Ms Hannah Curtain (instructed by Maitland Walker LLP) for the Claimants
Mr Michael Pooles QC and Mr Andrew Moran (instructed by Reynolds Colman Bradley LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 6–10, 13–16, 20–24, 27–31 October, 3–5, 12–14 November 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A §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.
| Paragraph | |
| Introduction | [1] |
| Law | |
| Bias | [13] |
| The Claimant's case on bias | [22] |
| The causes of action | [24] |
| British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation (BCRDL) | [42] |
| Scheme costs | [50] |
| Thompsons | [66] |
| The investigation of Raleys by the Law Society | [75] |
| The Sunday Times article of 16 January 2005 and Sir Michael | [82] |
| Turner's request for information The 23 March 2005 letter from Mr Lumsden (on behalf of NUM), the subsequent letter from Sir Michael Turner and the issue of private correspondence | [107] |
| Greene Wood and McLean | [127] |
| The summer of 2005 | [135] |
| Templeton Insurance Limited | [153] |
| The autumn of 2005 | [176] |
| 24 October | [186] |
| 25 October | [195] |
| 26 October | [198] |
| 27 October | [209] |
| The transfer of the GLO application from Master Turner to Sir Michael Turner on 11 November 2005 | [215] |
| The withdrawal of Templeton's ATE cover on 15 November and its reinstatement on 23 November 2005 | [224] |
| The press and political campaign in late 2005 and early 2006 | [242] |
| December 2005: further hearings before Sir Michael Turner and the Templeton ATE policy | [250] |
| The events of 27 February 2006 | [261] |
| The case against Thompsons | [265] |
| The case against Lord Prescott | [286] |
| The GLO hearing before Sir Michael Turner on 3–5 April 2006 | [311] |
| The Judgment of 18 May 2006 and subsequent events | [325] |
| Decision on liability | [340] |
| Decision on quantum | [354] |
| Conclusion | [400] |
Introduction
The Claimant is the assignee of claims from the liquidator of a firm of solicitors, Greene Wood and McLean LLP ('GWM'). The claims concern the failure of an application for a Group Litigation Order ('the GLO') brought on behalf of a group of coal miners. The object of the GLO was the recovery of sums which had been deducted from compensation awards in their favour (or in favour of their dependents) from the Coal Health Compensation Schemes in respect of personal injuries suffered in the course of their employment with the British Coal Corporation. The Coal Health Compensation Schemes covered two types of disease or injury: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ('COPD') and Vibration White Finger ('VWF'). The Judge in charge of the COPD litigation from 1995 was Turner J. He retired from the High Court Bench in 2002 but continued to act as the Supervising Judge until 2006.
The GLO was brought against a number of respondents and was vigorously opposed. In a judgment on 18 May 2006 Sir Michael dismissed the GLO application with costs, made an interim costs order against GWM's clients in the sum of £600,000 and refused permission to appeal. He also invited the respondents to consider an application for a wasted costs order against GWM.
The GLO application had been backed by an After the Event ('ATE') insurance policy issued by an Isle of Man insurer, Templeton Insurance Limited ('Templeton'), whose managing-director was Ralph Brunswick. The Templeton policy insured GWM's clients against the risk of an order for adverse costs and liability for their own disbursements in connection with an action brought against the Union of Democratic Miners ('the UDM'), its claims handling company, Vendside Ltd and five firms of solicitors who had acted for the claimant miners. These were the seven respondents to the GLO application.
On 25 May 2006, a week after Sir Michael Turner's judgment dismissing the GLO application, Templeton purported to avoid the ATE insurance policy. It is the Claimant's case that the combination of the GLO decision and the subsequent avoidance of the ATE cover, effectively destroyed GWM's business.
In the present claim the Claimant seeks to recover a principal sum of the order of £71 million as damages for conspiracy and other torts against the 1st Defendant, a firm of solicitors. There are also claims against various named present or former partners of the firm, the 2 nd–9th Defendants and the 11th Defendant (whom I shall refer to as Lord Prescott, although he was a Member of the House of Commons at the material time). Templeton, formerly the 10th Defendant, was released from the proceedings by a Consent Order dated 29 February 2012.
As the case progressed the Claimant dropped allegations against some of the Defendant partners and focussed his case against the firm, one of its partners: Geoff Shears (the 6th Defendant) and Lawrence Lumsden (the 9th Defendant), a partner in the separate firm of Thompsons Scotland. The case against Lord Prescott also became considerably narrowed.
In short summary, the Claimant's case contained three central allegations occurring in three material periods.
First, it is said that the 1st-9th Defendants ('the Thompsons Defendants') unlawfully interfered with the operation of the ATE cover provided by Templeton to GWM's clients. The effect of this included causing Templeton temporarily to withdraw its cover in November 2005, thereby giving rise to doubts about its sufficiency and enforceability when it came to be considered at the hearing of the GLO application in April 2006. Secondly, it is alleged that Thompsons took steps to ensure that Sir Michael Turner would hear the GLO application knowing or believing that he was biased against the application, and with the specific intention that the GLO application would be dismissed. Thirdly, it is said that in the course of concerted efforts on behalf of their union clients, the Durham Miners Association (the 'DMA') and the Durham Colliery Mechanics' Trust (the 'DCMT') Thompsons committed further unlawful acts against GWM (actionable breach of confidence and deceit); although by the conclusion of the trial this third aspect of the claim was relied on more by way of background than as a separate and independent route to judgment.
The first material period of enquiry is February and March 2005, when Sir Michael Turner sought and received a report from Mr Lumsden about the practice of solicitors making deductions from miners' compensation in favour of trade unions. It is the Claimant's case that in private correspondence the Judge revealed a predisposition in favour of Thompsons's position and adverse to what was to become GWM's position. This predisposition remained unknown to GWM throughout the period when the GLO was being advanced and up until the time of the GLO judgment.
The second period of enquiry is late October and early November 2005, when it is alleged that there was further private correspondence to and from Sir Michael Turner which excluded GWM, and during which some of the Thompsons Defendants took active steps to ensure that he would be the Judge hearing the GLO application. It was also during this period and, the Claimant says, not coincidentally that Templeton (in a letter dated 15 November 2005) withdrew its agreement to provide the ATE insurance cover for the GLO application, although it subsequently restored it on 23 November 2005.
The third material period is late February 2006, at a time when Thompsons became aware that Templeton had reinstated the ATE cover for the GLO application. The Claimant contends that illegitimate pressure was brought to bear on Templeton which was intended to stop its continued support of the GLO application. This pressure is said to have been applied during a number of telephone calls, and at a meeting at Thompsons's offices on 27 February 2006. Among those calls was one from Lord Prescott to Mr Brunswick at about 18.30 on 27 February when Mr Brunswick was at London City Airport.
The Defendants submit that, before one gets into the detail of the claim, there are a number of material matters which make the Claimant's factual case improbable. First, although there were five solicitors who were respondents to the GLO application, Thompsons was not one of them. They had no direct interest in the result. Secondly, Sir Michael Turner had taken a judicial oath which still bound him to 'do right to all manner of people … without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.' Whatever the merits of the argument about appearances, the suggestion that he was actually biased against GWM and their clients and was known to be, is inherently unlikely. Thirdly, the suggestion made to Sir Michael Turner that he should hear the GLO application, came not from Thompsons, but in a letter from the Claimants' Group (the 'CG'), who acted (as their name suggests) in the interests of all BCRDL claimants and which included solicitors who had never made any deductions, had no direct interest in the result of the GLO application although they had a clear interest in avoiding anything which might cause delay to the just and efficient determination of BCRDL claims.
Bias
It is convenient at this stage to consider what is meant by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Jackson (Claimant/Appellant) v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) and Others
...EWCA Civ 138 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Mr. Justice Simon [2015] EWHC 218 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Moore-Bick Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division and Lady......