In a recent ruling in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Webster and others v Treloars Trust [2025] EWHC 516 (KB)</span>, the High Court denied an application for a Group Litigation Order (“<span class="news-text_medium">GLO</span>”) on behalf of 63 prospective claimants. These claimants, which included former students of Treloar’s College who had been infected with HIV and/or hepatitis through NHS blood products, were seeking to consolidate their claims against the relevant parties.
The court, however, determined that it would not be an appropriate use of its resources to approve the GLO, particularly as the claimants had yet to pursue claims under the government-funded Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (“<span class="news-text_medium">IBCS</span>”). The judgment emphasised that the compensation scheme, designed to provide financial support to victims, was the appropriate avenue for redress before resorting to legal action.
The case concerns individuals who were either directly affected by the infected blood scandal, such as former pupils, or were infected through contact with them, including estates or dependents. The applicants argued that the IBCS had not fully implemented the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis KC and Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry (“<span class="news-text_medium">IBI</span>”). They also claimed that the compensation provided did not reflect the damages that would typically be awarded in litigation. Furthermore, they raised concerns that without holding the potential defendant accountable, similar incidents might occur in the future.
The claimants argued that the refusal to grant a GLO would result in numerous separate cases, each involving complex preliminary issues, which would likely increase costs and lead to inconsistent rulings. However, Senior Master Cook, who delivered the judgment of the court, found that a GLO would not help resolve the claims and was overly simplistic in addressing the issues at hand. He suggested that with proper cooperation and case management, many of the claims could be consolidated or managed together under standard court procedures, rendering a GLO unnecessary.
Master Cook also noted that, given the impending approval and implementation of the IBCS, which had been designed to offer comprehensive compensation to victims, it was unlikely that 63 claims would materialise. Evidence suggested that the IBCS provided advantages over litigation, including broader eligibility criteria and a "no-fault" approach to compensation. The court highlighted that claimants had not demonstrated they would receive less compensation through the IBCS than in successful litigation.
Furthermore, the court emphasised the need to promote alternative dispute resolution (“<span class="news-text_medium">ADR</span>”), noting that the IBCS itself served as a form of ADR. The court determined that it would not be appropriate to use judicial resources for the claims until the claimants had explored the IBCS as a first step. If the claimants could show that they had not been properly compensated under the scheme, their cases could be pursued under ordinary case management procedures.
This decision underscores the growing importance of alternative compensation mechanisms like the IBCS, which aim to provide quicker, more efficient remedies to victims, while reducing the burden on the court system.
