header-logo header-logo

Group claim refused for contaminated blood victims

12 March 2025
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Legal News , Health , Collective action , National Health Service , Compensation
printer mail-detail
Former pupils of Treloar’s College who were infected with contaminated blood during medical research in the 1970s and 1980s have lost their bid to bring a group litigation order (GLO).

Most of the 63 prospective claimants in Webster and others v Treloars Trust [2025] EWHC 516 (KB) attended the school’s haemophilia centre and were infected with HIV and/or hepatitis as a result of exposure to blood products. The former pupils say neither they nor their parents were properly consulted or given an opportunity to consent to their treatment. 

Dismissing their application this week, however, Senior Master Cook said the decision of whether to grant a GLO was ‘primarily one of case management’.

Senior Master Cook said: ‘It is important that it should be understood this does not mean the court is preventing these potential claims from being progressed or is indicating any view upon the merits of the potential claims… My decision relates solely to the use of a GLO as the appropriate vehicle through which such claims should be progressed…’.

Treloar’s was criticised last year in the final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, which investigated the treatment of about 30,000 people with contaminated National Health Service blood products. The government is currently in the process of setting up a tariff-based compensation scheme.

Referring to this scheme, Senior Master Cook said the applicants had failed to show they would be likely to recover less under it than they would recover through litigation.

He said he regarded the scheme as ‘a form of alternative dispute resolution. The overriding objective of the CPR was modified, with effect from 1 October 2024 to give effect to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, to require the court to promote and use alternative dispute resolution’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll