A recent High Court judgment sheds light on the evolving legal landscape around Covid-19 workplace claims and underscores the caution courts must exercise when considering early strike out or summary judgment applications.
A recent High Court ruling, (Edwards & Ors -v- 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1312 KB) has highlighted the complexities around Covid 19 claims in industry, as well as the approach to be taken by the courts when assessing summary judgment/strike out applications.
During the pandemic, the 2 Sisters food processing factory in Anglesey, Wales experienced a Covid 19 outbreak. Several workers claim that they caught the virus due to working in close proximity to each other and lack of adequate PPE.
In a July 2024 ruling the court at first instance struck out the case on the basis the claimants had failed to serve any medical evidence linking the alleged illness with work.
However, High Court judge Sir Peter Lane overturned that ruling criticising, in particular, the need to avoid courts conducting ‘mini trials’, especially where all the evidence was not yet available. Sir Peter concluded that the approach taken by the claimants on expert evidence was not unreasonable at this stage. The instant case had also not had disclosure, nor witness statement exchange.
In considering causation, the judge found that the claimant’s case that they could only have been exposed to Covid 19 at the workplace was not fanciful, even if there was likely an ‘uphill task’ to establish such.
This case reinforces the limits of summary judgment, especially in more novel or fact sensitive cases. The issue of the appropriate approach to causation in Covid 19 cases, though, is now one for another day, but it is clear this is where the battle ground will lie.
