AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine claim

The claim is against AstraZeneca UK Limited to secure financial compensation for the families affected. Some of the families involved have lost their primary earners, while others are learning to care for loved ones who have complex brain injuries and other physical disabilities as a result of their vaccine-induced injuries.

Leigh Day and many of those we represent recognise the importance of vaccination. It is therefore important to make it clear that this is not an “anti-vaccination” case. However, it is a case of justice – one in which we seek to secure fair compensation for the families who paid the ultimate personal price for agreeing to be vaccinated during the pandemic.

There is a Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme in the UK which recognises that there should be a safety net to support people in situations where vaccinations go wrong. Those who suffer serious harm can apply for financial support if they can prove that a vaccine caused the injury or death. However, the scheme is outdated and provides a maximum compensation of £120,000. This figure has not been reviewed since 2010, meaning that the scheme offers too little, too late, to too few people.

With the only scheme available being unfit for purpose, those who have been injured or killed as a result of vaccination feel they have no choice but to take legal action to recover the financial support they desperately need.

Leigh Day works with our clients to achieve this goal. Leigh Day only helps individuals and families who have suffered a specific complication after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine, known as Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia or VITT.

Clinical evidence suggests that this is a specific syndrome involving those affected who suffer from widespread blood clots and a concomitant low platelet count. AstraZeneca has now accepted that in rare cases its COVID-19 vaccine can cause a combination of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, which it calls TTS.

The case is brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and is a product liability claim. To win the case we need to show that the vaccine was less safe than our clients were entitled to expect.

The UK government indemnified AstraZeneca during the pandemic, meaning that although AstraZeneca is the formal defendant, the UK government is effectively paying for AstraZeneca’s defence of the claim and will cover the costs of compensation if the claim is successful. The exact terms of the indemnity agreement between the government and AstraZeneca have not been published. However, this position is consistent with the indemnities that the UK government has put in place with many vaccine manufacturers during the pandemic; the aim is to encourage companies to produce vaccines at a rapid pace by effectively providing those companies with cost protection against future product liability claims related to the vaccine. Leigh Day is working with the campaign group VIBUK and other prominent academics and politicians, including former Attorney General Sir Jeremy Wright MP, to push for reform of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. If there was a fair system in place, litigation would not be necessary. It would be better for all parties involved, but especially for the families and individuals we represent who have to sue one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, backed by the UK government, to get the financial support they desperately need.

Reform of the VDPA is part of Module 4 of COVID-19. Sarah Moore , lead partner on the case, has given evidence to the COVID-19 inquiry – arguing for reform of the VDPA.

The trial is ongoing and is likely to be heard in court in 2025/2026.