Topic: Group action litigation

In McClean and others v Andrew Thornhill QC [2019] EWCH 3514 (ch), the High Court dismissed a £40m claim brought by investors in film finance tax schemes. Zacaroli J held that Andrew Thornhill QC owed no duty of care to investors and his advice in relation to the schemes was not negligent. The judgment includes helpful guidance on the duty of care owed by professional advisers and the application of both limitation periods. The case will be of particular interest to professional indemnity insurers, litigation funders and parties in various other film finance claims.

There are now conflicting High Court authorities on whether additional claimants can be added to group or multi-party litigation without permission under CPR 17.1

The CAT has refused to order the disclosure of a Proposed Class Representative’s ATE insurance premia

Could the proposed competition collective action against Meta signal an alternative route for collective actions against large data controllers?

The UK Supreme Court handed down the much anticipated judgment in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, unanimously allowing Google’s appeal and reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The recent UK Supreme Court ruling in Merricks v Mastercard has important implications for UK collective actions for competition law infringements.

In Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2021] EWCA Civ 16, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that Damages Based Agreement (DBA) regulations do not prevent early termination payments being made to solicitors.

In a shift from a line of first instance decisions, the recent Court of Appeal decision in Rowe & Ors v Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 29 (Rowe) has narrowed the circumstances in which a defendant may be required to provide cross-undertakings in damages as a condition of an order for security for costs to “rare and exceptional” cases.

In the Ingenious film partnerships group litigation, the High Court ruled that the claimants should provide extended disclosure in relation to their investment history, as this may be relevant to: (i) their risk appetite and financial sophistication, which may in turn inform the scope of the defendants’ duty of care in providing advice; and (ii) causation of any loss as a result of alleged fraudulent and negligent representations regarding the Ingenious structure.

In the high profile Lloyds/HBOS litigation, the High Court recently handed down judgment in respect of costs.