Taylor v Nugent Care Society
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY,LORD JUSTICE WALL,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 51 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | A2/2003/1208 |
| Date | 19 January 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 51
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(MR JUSTICE MOSES)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes)
Lord Justice Tuckey and
Lord Justice Wall
A2/2003/1208
MR RICHARD MAXWELL QC and MISS PAULA SPARKS
(instructed by Messrs Jackson & Canter, Liverpool L1 8BW) appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT
MR EDWARD FAULKS QC and MR NICHOLAS FEWTRELL(instructed by Messrs Hill Dickinson, Liverpool L2 9XL)
appeared on behalf of THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
Monday 19 January 2004
The issue in this case is whether it is an abuse of the process of the court for a claimant who has commenced proceedings, where those proceedings raise an issue covered by a group litigation order ("GLO"), who is refused permission, to join the GLO out of time to proceed with his claim, notwithstanding that refusal.
The background to this appeal is that the defendants, the Nugent Care Society, successfully applied to Moses J on 15 May 2003 for an order that the claimant's claim be struck out as an abuse of the court's process pursuant to CPR 3.4.2(b) and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction. Moses J also refused the claimant's application to adjourn in order to obtain further evidence as to the claimant's capacity to manage his litigation. The latter point has not been the subject of argument on this appeal.
The case has a considerable history. In the 1970s a number of young men who were then residing at different institutions were the subject of indecent assaults and other inappropriate acts. As a result of complaints which were made, information became available to the police that young men who were in the care of the defendants were complaining of such abuse.
The claimant made a statement to the police at Warrington suggesting that on 16 February 1995 he had been subject to abuse while in the defendants' care. He subsequently made a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in about February 1996 and that claim was upheld in 2000. In the meantime other individuals who alleged that they had been treated in this way commenced a group action in 1997. In respect of that group action an order in due course was made by the then Chief Justice establishing a GLO. That GLO was the subject of directions which were given by Douglas Brown J on 16 December 1998. The group action was entitled "The North-West Child Abuse Cases".
5. In the directions which Douglas Brown J gave he provided a cut-off date by which claimants would have to join the group action. That date was 31 May 1999. He also gave other directions, including a date by which individual statements of particulars had to be given, and that date was 30 September 1999.
On 1 October 1999, District Judge Fairclough, who was one of the two district judges given responsibility for giving management directions in relation to those actions to which the GLO applied, extended time for the compliance with Douglas Brown J's order for certain claimants. 31 December 1999 was the last date for the individual defences.
The claimant, having succeeded in obtaining an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, commenced proceedings with a claim form on 17 December 2001. Previously in September 1998 he had obtained a medical report. The date on which he commenced his proceedings was approximately two-and-a-half years subsequent to the cut-off date provided for joining the GLO. The proceedings were served on 23 January 2002. Two days later the claimant made an application for permission to join the group action. That application came before District Judge Fairclough who dismissed the application on 21 February 2002. In his judgment the district judge identified perfectly appropriate reasons for taking the course that he did. However, permission to appeal against his decision was given to the claimant on 17 June 2002. That appeal came before Poole J on 18 July 2002. It was one of a series of appeals that were before the judge on that occasion and it appears that, having heard the judgment given by Poole J in respect of other decisions which had been made in the group action, the claimant decided not to proceed with his appeal and accordingly the district judge's order stood.
On 20 December 2002 the defendants made an application that the claimant's claim should be struck out as an abuse of the court's process or under the court's inherent jurisdiction. That is the application which was successful before Moses J and which leads to this appeal in respect of which the single judge has given permission to appeal to this court.
The provisions which are contained in the Civil Procedure Rules dealing with group litigation were an innovation which was introduced by an amendment to the rules made in 2000. It was the experience of the courts that if litigation involving a substantial number of claimants was to be managed in the appropriate way, it was essential that there should be some procedure which provided the courts with very wide powers to manage the proceedings. It was in the court's interest for the proper dispatch of other litigation that the court should have those powers. It was also in the interests of litigants that the courts should have those powers because it would enable the court to deal with this sort of litigation in a more efficient and economic manner than would otherwise be possible. It would enable the court to provide more expeditious justice. It is therefore of the greatest importance to the proper conduct of litigation before the civil courts that, where the court decides that there should be a GLO (and that decision requires the directions of the Chief Justice), that that decision is supported by the courts.
In giving his judgment Moses J was very conscious of the issues to which I have just referred. He dealt with the issues which were before him with very considerable care. In due course he gave a judgment which is a model for the clarity with which it is expressed. He started by dealing with the particular circumstances of the claimant's claim. He pointed out that no explanation of any cogency or weight whatever had been put forward for the delay in issuing the claim form by the claimant prior to the cut-off date.
Having dealt with the claimant's individual circumstances he went on to deal with the position more generally. In the course of so doing he said:
"15. It is an abuse for this claimant to seek to bring individual proceedings at the time he does, having failed in his application to join the group action? Secondly, even if it is an abuse, is it a proportionate response of this Court to prevent him bringing any action at all, because that would be the result of an order to strike out in pursuing his claim and seeking to vindicate his rights as a result of the treatment he suffered in the care home.
16. The starting point must be that there is no obligation upon a Claimant to join a group action. There is nothing within the rules that requires a claimant to do so. However, the overriding objective is the CPR, and the rules in relation to group...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
...others v Oury, Jameson Holdings Ltd, Societe Financiere Zariston SA [2002] EWHC LTL 15/3/2002 167 Mark Taylor v Nugent Care Society [2004] EWCA Civ 51 [2008] EWHC 3151 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Eady Case No: HQ01X02997 Betwe......
-
Mr John Greenwood and Others v Mr Frederick Goodwin and Others
...would be appropriate. After further argument (especially in relation to the effect on GLOs of the Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor v Nugent Care Society [2004] 1 WLR 1129), at the second CMC on 17 September 2013 I confirmed my view, subject again to the Chancellor's approval. That appro......
-
Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
...19.12(3) (Eng.) (emphasis added); see also ZUCKERMAN, supra note 220, at 525 (explaining the appeals process under Rule 19.12). (245) [2004] EWCA (Civ) 51, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1129 (246) See ZUCKERMAN, supra note 220, at 520-23 (discussing the Taylor case); Mulheron, supra note 220, at 41, 46, ......
-
Between Sector-Specific and Horizontal: A New Proposal for Ireland's Implementation of Collective Litigation Mechanisms
...(2013) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 93/2013, 3, 12 accessed 15 November 2017. 80 See for example Taylor v Nugent Care Society [2004] EWCA Civ 51 [9]; Higgins and Zuckerman (n 79) 12; O’Sullivan (n 20) 131-132. 81 Rachel Mulheron, ‘Some diiculties with group litigation orders – and wh......