A new time-table has been set out for the High Court case in which farmers who allege they were poisoned by organophosphate chemicals are claiming damages from the product manufacturers.
In the last case management meeting on 20 January, Master Miller, the judge, made various directions for the group action, which is confined to claims for exposure to OPs supplied for sheep dipping.
By 19 April, Hodge Jones and Allen, the lawyers handling the generic part of the group action, will have to serve short factual statements for each person’s case setting out, for example, which chemical was involved, who the manufacturer was, why the product was unsafe, how and when the damage was caused and what the effects were.
By 24 May, Hodge Jones and Allen will have delivered new medical reports. ‘There was some debate at the last meeting about whether the reports we had served up to that point were adequate,’ said Patrick Allen, a partner in the law firm. ‘We will obtain additional evidence from consultants to address that point.’
By 23 July, the defendants – who include the chemical manufacturers and employers of some of the plaintiffs – will have handed in their defence, a legal document explaining why they are not liable for any damages. Some of the employers are members of the National Farmers Union.
The next proper hearing in on 31 July, when lawyers for the farmers will have to show the court that the case is suitable for having certain generic issues heard together rather than hearing lots of separate claims. At the same hearing, Master Miller will probably impose a cut-off date beyond which no other plaintiffs will be able to join the action.
Up to November, Hodge Jones and Allen were sharing the generic work with Wolferstans, another firm of lawyers. But a review of the case arrangements decided to put Hodge Jones and Allen in charge of the generic work, leaving Wolferstans to handle individual cases within the action.
Mr Allen explained that although farmers may still try to join the action, some would not meet the criteria for legal aid. ‘It would cost at least £10,000 for them to finance their own case, which is probably too much for many of them.’ The firm was hoping there would be 125 reasonable cases. ‘If it falls much below that, then there will have to be a very careful look at the cost benefit to the legal aid board.’ The board expected four times the cost of the case in damages, said Mr Allen. ‘So if the total cost of the action came to £2 million, the board would look to see £8 million in damages.’
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 47, March 2000, page 17]