Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 230 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 1280 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division
Judge:

Keith J

Representation Augustus Ullstein QC, Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC, Simeon Maskrey QC, John Tonna and Shirley Hennessy (instructed by Alexander Harris) for the claimants.
  Charles Gibson QC, Prashant Popat and James Martin-Jenkins (instructed by Davies Arnold Cooper) for the defendants Smithkline Beecham plc and Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd.
  Andrew Prynne QC and Toby Riley-Smith (instructed by Lovells) for the defendant Merck & Co Inc.
  George Leggatt QC and Harry Matovu (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for the defendant Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.
  Sue Carr (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the NHS Litigation Authority.
  James Medd (instructed by Lawrence Graham) for the Greater Glasgow Health Board and Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust.
Judgment Dates: 27 June 2002

Catchwords

Pleadings - Particulars - Amendment - Request for further information - Claimants objecting to information sought - Whether order to be granted where requests could have been made before amendment.

The Case

When considering whether to make orders for further information from the claimants involved in the MMR and MR vaccine litigation the court ruled that a party's perception of the further information which it needed could change in the course of time, especially in complex litigation. The fact that the defendants could have asked for particular information at an earlier stage or in a different and wider format did not, of itself, mean that the current requests for further information should be refused. Each of the requests should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and if the defendants truly needed the further information at a later stage, and if providing it was not too time-consuming or expensive, the claimants should be required to provide it.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.