The judgment serves as a reminder of solicitors’ duties to properly investigate corporate identity in historic employer’s liability claims and to act promptly when fundamental flaws in a case are identified.
Background
The claimant, Caroline Robinson (as administratrix of her late father’s estate), brought an asbestos-related disease claim against three defendants:
Air Compressors & Tool Limited (First Defendant)
Lansing Bagnall Limited (Second Defendant)
Lansing Linde Limited (Third Defendant)
The claim alleged that the deceased had been exposed to asbestos while working at a manufacturing site in Basingstoke. However, the claim was fundamentally flawed from the outset due to incorrect identification of the corporate defendants.
The Corporate Identity Issue
The Second and Third Defendants filed their defences in September 2021, clearly setting out that they could not have employed the deceased during the alleged periods because:
The second Defendant (Lansing Bagnall Ltd) was incorporated in 1970 under a different name and only adopted the name "Lansing Bagnall" in 1990, long after the alleged exposure period (1968-1982).
The third Defendant (Lansing Linde Ltd) was incorporated in 1977 as "Lansing Ltd" and only became "Lansing Linde" in 2003, meaning it could not have employed the deceased between 1982-1992.
Despite this, the claimant’s solicitors continued litigation for over two more years, filing brief replies to the defences and only conceding at the "door of the court" in May 2024.
The Wasted Costs Application
The Second and Third Defendants applied for a wasted costs order under s.51 Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 46.8, arguing that the respondent firm had:
Failed to properly investigate corporate histories before issuing proceedings.
Ignored clear defences that demonstrated the claims were unsustainable.
Delayed taking corrective action, forcing the defendants to incur unnecessary costs.
Only conceded at the last moment, wasting court resources.
Master Thornett agreed, finding that:
The corporate histories were not complex and should have been verified before issuing proceedings.
The replies to the defences were deficient, failing to engage with the defendants’ arguments.
The delay in conceding was unjustifiable and amounted to negligent conduct.
The claim against the Third Defendant was improperly pursued given its express denial of employment.
The court rejected the respondent firm’s argument that the issue was only clear "with hindsight," holding that basic Companies House checks would have revealed the error.
Lesson
A wasted costs order requires improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct. Pursuing a "hopeless case" may be negligent if no competent solicitor would have continued