Court denies group litigation order in infected blood case

High Court denies group litigation order in infected blood case

The High Court has refused an application for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) in a case involving 63 prospective claimants against Treloars Trust. The claimants, including former pupils of Treloar's College, alleged that they were infected with HIV and hepatitis through NHS blood products administered during unethical research conducted at the college.

The application was presented by Andrew Goddard KC on behalf of the claimants, who argued that a GLO was necessary to address the common issues arising from the alleged negligence and unethical practices at Treloar's College. The claimants contended that the college owed a duty of care to its pupils and breached this duty through its involvement in research that led to infections.

Senior Master Cook, presiding over the case, concluded that the application should be dismissed. He emphasised that the proposed GLO would not efficiently resolve the claims, as individual issues predominated over common ones. The court also noted that the newly established Infected Blood Compensation Scheme provided a more appropriate avenue for compensation.

The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme, established following recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff's Infected Blood Inquiry, aims to compensate victims of infected blood without the need for litigation. The scheme offers core and supplementary awards, with substantial sums set aside by the government to ensure victims receive adequate compensation.

Mr Goddard KC argued that the scheme's compensation was insufficient, particularly for victims of unethical research at Treloar's. However, the court found no evidence that claimants would receive less under the scheme than through litigation. The scheme's no-fault basis and broader eligibility criteria were seen as advantages over court proceedings.

On behalf of Treloars Trust, Toby Riley-Smith KC argued that a GLO was unnecessary given the compensation scheme's provisions. He highlighted the complexity and diversity of the claims, suggesting that individual case management would be more suitable.

The court's decision reflects a preference for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, in line with the Civil Procedure Rules' emphasis on proportionality and efficiency. The ruling underscores the importance of the compensation scheme in addressing the grievances of those affected by the infected blood scandal.

While the decision may disappoint some claimants seeking accountability from Treloars Trust, the court noted that the findings of the Infected Blood Inquiry are public and acknowledged by the government, reducing the likelihood of similar incidents occurring in the future.

Learn More

For more information on medical negligence, see BeCivil's guide to Medical Negligence.