The High Court's judgment of 10 June 2026 in the Johnson & Johnson baby powder litigation sets out the principles for amending claims and describes the group particulars of claim, affecting claimants and defendants.
Key facts
- Who: Claimants alleging illness from exposure to Johnson's Baby Powder, and the defendants
- From: 10 June 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Janet Fuschillo & Ors v Johnson & Johnson & Ors [2026] EWHC 1403 (KB)
In Fuschillo and others v Johnson & Johnson and others [2026] EWHC 1403 (KB), given in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, on 10 June 2026, the court considered the group particulars of claim (GPOC) and proposed amendments to it. The case numbers are KB-2026-000030 and KB-2026-000032.
Background
The claims concern people said to have developed one or more of: malignant pleural mesothelioma; malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; various cancers of the female reproductive system, described together as "ovarian cancer"; and lung granulomata and/or fibrosis, together with uterine fibroids.
The GPOC defines "the Cohort" as people who have contracted one of those diseases and are alive, together with those who have died where claims are brought on their behalf. The claimants say their illness arose from "repeated and regular exposure" to Baby Powder over at least five years, with at least some exposure more than 10 years before the clinical onset of the disease complained of.
The GPOC currently runs to some 75 pages and 136 paragraphs. Its first sections introduce the product and the parties. A later section addresses the composition of Baby Powder, including the geology of talc.
The question
The proposed amendments to the GPOC raised the principles that govern when a party may change its pleaded case.
The principles set out
The judgment records that where an amendment only adds factual material in support of a point already pleaded, the court should not assess the merits. It would, however, be contrary to the overriding objective to allow amendments with no real prospect of success.
Timing is weighed in the balance. Lateness is a "relative concept". An amendment is late if it could have been advanced earlier, involves duplicated cost and effort, or requires the other side to revisit significant steps such as disclosure, witness statements and expert reports. Even an amendment that is merely "late" carries a "heavy burden" of justification.
Amendments involving claims outside a limitation period are governed by section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4. The judgment cites a four-stage test: whether it is reasonably arguable the amendment is outside the limitation period; whether it adds or substitutes a new cause of action; whether any new cause of action arises from the same or substantially the same facts already in issue; and whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow it.
The judgment also quotes guidance on what counts as a new cause of action and on "same or substantially the same" facts, which is not the same as "similar". Its purpose is to avoid a defendant having to investigate, after limitation has expired, facts completely outside those it could reasonably be assumed to have investigated.
What this means for people involved in group injury claims
The judgment is a statement of the principles courts use when a party asks to change its pleaded case, including timing and, where limitation has expired, the link between new and existing facts. Anyone with a claim of this kind should read the judgment itself or check the position with a legal adviser.
Sources
- Janet Fuschillo & Ors v Johnson & Johnson & Ors [2026] EWHC 1403 (KB), High Court, King's Bench Division, 10 June 2026