Cridge v Studorp Ltd

This case involves two appeals arising from proceedings brought by a group of home owners against James Hardie, a manufacturer of building products, in the High Court. The appeals were heard together in the Court of Appeal. The first appeal concerns the granting of a representative order in favour of the home owners by Ellis J. The second appeal concerns the refusal by Thomas J to make precautionary orders that would have preserved the position of the members of the proposed class for limitation purposes should the then pending application for a representative order before Ellis J be unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the making of the representative order and allowed the cross-appeal challenging the terms of the opt-in order. It allowed the appeal against the making of the precautionary orders and set aside the decision of Thomas J. In the first appeal, the Court held that the three issues selected for determination on a representative basis were sufficiently common to justify the order made by Ellis J and that the representative order will better achieve the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the proceedings than the test case procedure advocated by James Hardie. In relation to the opt-in order, the Court held that the opt-in periods were too short and took insufficient account of access to justice considerations. It increased the period to five calendar months. In the second appeal, the Court held that when time stopped running under the Limitation Act for the representative owners, it stopped for everyone else on whose behalf they purported to sue and that remained the case regardless of whether a representative order was later made or not. Had Ellis J declined to make a representative order, those homeowners who had already consented, or who were within the definition of the class, would therefore have been able to join the proceedings as named plaintiffs after 31 December 2015.