PI Brief Update

Caroline Robinson v. Air Compressors & Tool Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1469 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

17/07/25. Robinson considered whether to make a wasted costs order against a Claimant who had unsuccessfully brought proceedings against three different defendants.

Background

The Claimant (as administratrix of the Deceased’s estate) brought a fatal accident claim against three Defendants – i) Air Compressors & Tool Limited, ii) Lansing Bagnall Limited, and iii) Lansing Linde Limited – alleging asbestos exposure during the Deceased's employment at a specific manufacturing site.

The Defendants contested the validity of the claim. Particularly focus was given to the Defendants ‘corporate identities’. Specifically, the Second and Third Defendants sought to strike out the claim, asserting that neither company could have employed the Claimant based on their corporate history.

The Court dismissed the claim against the First Defendant. The claimant subsequently agreed to discontinue claims against the Second and Third Defendants in exchange for the addition of a new party.

Following the discontinuance, the Second and Third Defendants sought a wasted costs order against the Claimant's solicitors. They argued that the solicitors had pursued claims against the wrong defendants for an extended period without a proper legal basis, leading to unnecessary costs.

Judgment

The Court found that the claimant's solicitors failed to adequately respond to the corporate identity challenges highlighted by the Defendants. Despite having received substantial evidence regarding the corporate histories of the defendants, including their incorporation dates and prior names, the solicitors did not perform the necessary due diligence to confirm the validity of their claims. This negligence was deemed unacceptable, especially given the clarity of the Defendants’ defences.

The decision highlighted that the solicitors’ continued pursuit of claims without a solid foundation not only resulted in unnecessary costs for the defendants but also wasted Court resources.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court ruled in favour of the Defendants, issuing a wasted costs order against the Claimant's solicitors.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical need for diligence and accountability in legal practice, particularly in complex cases involving historical claims.

Caroline Robinson v. Air Compressors & Tool Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1469 (KB)

Image ©iStockphoto.com/hroe