header-logo header-logo

12 March 2025
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Legal News , Health , Collective action , National Health Service , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Group claim refused for contaminated blood victims

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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll