Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Insights / Navigating the litigation minefield: Bailey and others v GlaxoSmithKline 2019

The phrase ‘Your name’s not down, you’re not coming in’ is unlikely to pass a judge’s lips, but is one that neatly sums up your position if you attempt to use it at trial legal arguments. The same applies if you try to raise points that you haven’t set out in your statement of case. In a recent case, there was an attempt to do just that in a long running claim which alleged that a defective drug was decisively stopped in its tracks by the trial judge in Bailey and others v GlaxoSmithKline 2019.

Statements of case (particulars of claim, defence etc) are the foundations upon which a legal claim are built, with each side setting out the facts and matters they rely on in support of their position. Disclosure of documents, witness and expert evidence all flow from those statements of case. It’s procedurally unjust for one side to try to slip in something at trial that the other side has not had an opportunity to respond to during the course of preparation for trial.

As a case develops, there may be other issues that come to light which need to be brought into the statements of case. Although amendments to statements of case are possible, judicial agreement may be needed and you can generally expect to pay your opponents’ legal costs for dealing with your amendments. Furthermore, the later a request for amendment, the less likely the amendment will be allowed.

An approach of ‘throwing in the kitchen sink’ in case you need it later is likely to lead to judicial criticism, and could result in you (even if you ultimately win) adding to your own legal costs and having to pay the other side their costs of dealing with unnecessary allegations. The case further demonstrates the careful path always to be taken through the litigation minefield.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron