Coote v Ullstein  EWHC 607 (QB) (on BAILII).
An article by Neil Rose in Legal Futures draws attention to this matter, in which the potential negligence of counsel and solicitors in respect of limitation period advice was not causative of loss as the litigation (alleging a link between MMR vaccine and epilepsy) would have failed in any event.
At one point in time there were approximately two thousand claimants in the MMR Litigation Group who were seeking to make claims against the various manufacturers.
Ms Coote had been a claimant in a group action. Mr Justice Bell determined that the alleged link between MMR and Inflammatory Bowel Disorder and autism should be tried as a preliminary issue in 2001. The Claimants were dealt a fatal blow when it emerged that ten of the twelve authors of the original 1998 Lancet paper retracted the interpretation placed by the lead author Dr Andrew Wakefield and his research methods were subsequently discredited. Legal Aid funding was removed from the MMR Group Action for these claims as a result. ()
The Claimant’s claim was however different as she was claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and epilepsy. Her solicitors were eventually able to obtain the report of an expert witness who would support the link between the MMR vaccine and the development of her epilepsy. (). However the evidence of that expert in US litigation was not accepted. The trial judge in this matter accepted the thrust of the Defendants submissions that Dr Kinsbourne’s professional reputation was adversely affected by his participation in this litigation. ().
The Court ultimately held that on an objective assessment of the expert evidence the Claimant had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment was granted for the defendant against the claimant.