In a judgment handed down yesterday in Fuschillo and others v Johnson & Johnson and others, Mrs Justice Hill and Senior Master Cook ruled that a GLO was the appropriate mechanism for handling the claims, citing the scale of the litigation and the need to resolve common issues.

The action has been brought on behalf of a large group of claimants who allege they developed malignant mesothelioma or ovarian cancer as a result of exposure to the talc-based product. They contend that Johnson’s Baby Powder was contaminated with asbestos and other harmful particles, and that the defendants continued to market the product as safe despite being aware of the risks.

The claims are brought in negligence and deceit.

The court also granted the claimants permission to amend their Generic Particulars of Claim to include allegations relating to the role of iron, said to be a contaminant of the product, in promoting the cancers at issue.

Johnson & Johnson replaced the talc formulation of Johnson’s Baby Powder with a cornstarch-based version in 2023.

The claimants are represented by counsel including Michael Rawlinson KC, Jonathan Adkin KC, Andrew Smith KC, Kate Boakes and Max Archer, instructed by Tom Langstaff of KP Law Limited.

Lead claimant Janet Fuschillo said: “I watched the hearing that led to [yesterday’s] decision and am relieved that the court took my predicament, and that of many others, into account. It was clear from what I saw that Johnson and Johnson will fight this case tooth and nail. They should know that all of us who developed illnesses from using their contaminated talc will do the same.”

Tom Longstaff, partner at KP Law, commented: “We are pleased the court recognised that a group litigation order is the quickest and fairest way to hear this case.

“Importantly,  the court has also acknowledged the claimants’ life limiting diagnoses and will endeavour to ensure as many as possible live to see its conclusion. We believe that a staged approach to this case will result in the most rapid resolution possible.”