PRESS BRIEFING NOTE

An application for a GROUP LITIGATION ORDER (GLO) to pursue claims for return of deductions made from compensation awards in favour of the UNION OF DEMOCRATIC MINEWORKERS (UDM/VENDSIDE) under the Coal Mining Compensation Schemes, was dismissed by a High Court Judge on Thursday 18th May 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of a number of applicants by GREENE WOOD & McLEAN SOLICITORS (of London), in conjunction with the ACTION GROUP FOR MINERS, prompted and supported by JOHN MANN MP for Bassetlaw, and has been the subject of widespread media reporting since mid 2005. 

In dismissing the case against BERESFORDS SOLICITORS LLP, UDM/VENDSIDE and four other firms of solicitors, SIR MICHAEL TURNER described the case as:

“Misconceived and constitutes a gross abuse of the system”.

“Unnecessary”, “inappropriate” and “precipitate”.

“Doomed from the start”.

The Judge castigated the lawyers for the Applicants, saying that they had pursued the case “aggressively and without proper regard to the rules which apply to group litigation”, such that “the interests of the Claimants will not have been met”.

The Applicants’ lawyers were responsible for:

“Protracted delay”

“Multiple inaccuracies”

“Carelessness”.

“Obstruction”

“Remarkable failure of judgment”

And for costs that have “escalated to a level that is truly staggering”.

“Not only was the application itself misconceived, but also it has been pursued in a manner which is both heavy handed and inept.  There are features present which reflect no credit on those who have been responsible for bringing it before the court”.

The Judge further ruled that there was no justification for the inclusion of BERESFORDS (or any of the solicitors) in the application as “There is no reasonable likelihood of solicitors coming under any liability to the individual Claimants, who will recover from the UDM or not at all”.

Commenting on the publicity surrounding the case, the Judge said “There is no doubt that in some of the publicity material which was put out by or on behalf of the AGM misleading information was published”.

The Judge also indicated that there were serious concerns about the true position of the Applicants’ after the event (ATE) insurance as to cover, amount and ability to satisfy the costs that were ordered against the Applicants, queried the accuracy of statements made in court by the lawyers for the Applicants, and whether the lawyers had consulted with the Applicants about alterations to the insurance position.

In dismissing the case, the Judge ordered that costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds be paid by the Applicants, that an interim sum of £600,000 costs be paid by the Applicants within 14 days and refused permission to appeal.

The case is reported as Hobson et al v AMS Solicitors et al [2006] EWHC 1134 (QB)