30 January 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 1 of 101 Insights
In its recent judgment in Wirral Council v Indivior plc [2025] EWCA Civ 40, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to strike out a representative action relating to claims under section 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) in respect of alleged fraudulent statements and dishonest omissions in published information.
This judgment provides important guidance on pursuing representative actions in the context of securities claims and what factors the Court can take into account when exercising its discretion when considering whether to allow a representative action to continue.
Representative actions can be brought under CPR 19.8 by a class representative who must have the 'same interest' in the claim as all of the members of the class that they represent.
In this case, the claim was brought by Wirral Council (as Administering Authority of Merseyside Pension Fund) (Wirral) on behalf of institutional and retail investors in Indivior and Reckitt. Wirral sought to adopt a bifurcated approach in bringing the claims, seeking declarations as to common (defendant-sided) issues on a representative basis under CPR 19.8, with individual claimant-sided issues (such as standing to sue, reliance, causation and quantum) to be determined separately.
The defendants sought to strike out the claim on the basis that the representative action mechanism was not an appropriate procedure, and that the claims should instead be brought as ordinary multi-party proceedings (which had already been commenced) with each investor being a claimant.
The High Court struck the representative claim out, finding that it would be unfair and unjust to allow the representative proceedings to oust the jurisdiction of the English courts to case-manage the claims from the start.
The multi-party proceedings had already been started and should continue, although the Court left open the possibility that the managing judge in those proceedings could decide to adopt a bifurcated approach as part of their case management powers.
Wirral appealed the Court of Appeal's decision for a number of reasons, including on the basis that the characterisation of the representative action as "ousting" the case management powers of the Court was misconceived.
The Court of Appeal held that, in striking the claim out, the High Court judge was well within the ambit of his discretion to decide whether to allow the representative action to continue. In exercising its discretion, the Court must assess the advantages and disadvantages of any available procedures (in this case, the representative action and the extant multi-party proceedings).
There was no doubt that one of Wirral's objectives in using the bifurcated representative procedure was to avoid the Court using its case management powers to order Wirral and the represented claimants to advance some of the claimant-sided issues in parallel with the defendant-sided common issues (as had invariably been done in similar FSMA claims). The Court of Appeal noted in this regard that it was "extremely unsatisfactory" that in the draft pleading produced by Wirral in the multi-party proceedings, it had declined to identify which claimants relied on which category of reliance (and how many fell into each category) on the basis that the information was contended not to be relevant in the representative proceedings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Wirral's appeal, noting that pursuit of the claims by way of the existing multi-party proceedings would not prevent Wirral from asking the Court to adopt a bifurcated approach, but with the obvious advantage of the Court having additional case management powers to order some disclosure or evidence in relation to individual issues to be produced in tandem.
The Court of Appeal's judgment is clear that, when considering whether to allow a claim to continue by way of representative action, the Court must have regard to striking a fair balance between the parties and furthering the overriding objective. In this case, it was important that the case management powers available to the Court in multi-party proceedings would ensure that the case would be dealt with expeditiously and fairly and that the litigation would not be one-sided.
Whilst the use of bifurcation in representative actions may be a means of enabling the representative to satisfy the 'same interest' requirement (because it allows issues requiring individual assessment to be hived off for determination at a later date), this case shows that the Court will not permit bifurcation to be used by claimants seeking to push defendant-side issues only in order to gain strategic advantages.
30 January 2025
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
by Multiple authors
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
by multiple authors
by multiple authors
A global view
by multiple authors