Becca Hogan and Adriano Stagni comment on the recent case management judgment in the Talc Group Litigation, Fuschillo and ors v Johnson & Johnson

The claim brings together more than 2,000 claimants alleging mesothelioma or ovarian cancer said to be caused by asbestos-contaminated Johnson's Baby Powder, with reportedly a further 5,000 potential claimants.

While the headlines will focus on the claimants' success in securing a Group Litigation Order (GLO), a closer reading reveals a more nuanced picture underlying a wider debate about whether GLOs remain fit for purpose in the developing world of group litigation.

On 16 June, the first substantive case management judgment was handed down in the Talc Group Litigation. Here are some of the key points:

• A pragmatic position on the GLO. Whilst the Court ordered that the proceedings should be managed through a GLO, this came on the back of the Defendants not objecting to such a procedural mechanism. A GLO offers a court-supervised framework for resolving common issues, selecting lead cases and binding all parties to those findings. For defendants facing thousands of claims, that structure can reduce duplication and costs inefficiencies and provide protection against fragmented litigation. In light of the developing area of group claims in E&W, such as the Mariana Dam and Diesel NOx Group litigation, there has been recent debate about whether the GLO regime remains the most efficient tool for large-scale litigation. On the one hand, where genuinely common issues exist, a standard GLO can still provide structure and finality. However, as has been seen in the Diesel NOx litigation in particular, the Courts appear increasingly willing to offer bespoke case management, with the aim of achieving procedural and costs efficiencies. The "GLO plus" regime is demonstrative of the dynamic approach increasingly adopted by the Courts in response to the developing area of mass group claims.
• Judicial criticism of the claimants’ case. The claimants’ application to amend their pleadings was late; their counsel accepted that part of the Generic Particulars of Claim had been drafted by “mistake”; and the court treated the omissions around metals and minerals as drafting errors and internal inconsistencies. Most importantly, the court refused permission to plead the “platy talc” case, accepting that it was unclear, incomplete and not carried through the rest of the pleading.
• Procedural footing. Although the amendment outcome was mixed, the defendants secured important case management advantages. The court accepted their proposed requirements regarding SOCIs (Schedules of Claimant Information), including detailed information on product use, cause of death, prognosis evidence and expert instruction. Those details will assist with lead case selection.
• The next procedural hearing is on 20 July 2026 where J&J is likely to press for clarity and proportionality, resist any unsupported expansion of the pleaded case, and hold the claimants to proper evidential discipline. In the meantime, the Group Register is to be established and the first stage of SOCIs to be provided.