Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Three Paths of Justice pp 197–216Cite as

Multi-party Litigation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1065 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 65))

Abstract

English ‘multi-party’ litigation can take various forms: test cases, consolidated litigation or multiple joinder of parties’, ‘Group Litigation Orders’ (such litigation involves ‘opting-in’ by each individual), representative proceedings (an opt-out procedure which has not taken off as far as money claims are concerned) The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has introduced a class action mechanism for injunctions or money claims in respect of competition law infringements. Commencement of this last form of proceeding requires permission from the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Bibliography, Section 3.15; for pre-2013 journal literature, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, Chap. 22 n 1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Neil Andrews, ‘Multi-Party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions’ (2001) Duke J Com Int L 249, 257; noting CPR 3.1(2)(g); 19.1; 19.2(3); ordinary joinder of co-claimants in Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545, HL (over 3,000 claimants).

  2. 2.

    CPR 19, Section III; and Practice Direction 19B.

  3. 3.

    CPR 19, Section II; Neil Andrews, ‘Multi-Party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions’ (2001) Duke J Com Int L 249, 250–7.

  4. 4.

    Procesos Collectivos: Class Actions (Buenos Aires, 2012) (reports submitted to the International Congress, 6–9 June, 2012, Argentina).

  5. 5.

    C Hodges and A Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013), Chaps. 1–9 (by various authors, concerning approaches in the Netherlands, England, Canada, the USA, Australia, and China).

  6. 6.

    As reported by Laura Ervo (surveying Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark) at the Hungary conference, Budapest November 2013.

  7. 7.

    The distinction between formal and economic or ‘effective’ access to justice was acknowledged in Hamilton v Fayed (No 2) [2002] 3 All ER 641, CA, at [65], and [81]; see Bibliography, Section 3.1; for observations in the context of multi-party proceedings, C Hodges, ‘The Europeanisation of Civil Justice: Trends and Issues’ (2007) 26 CJQ 96, 98 ff.

  8. 8.

    [2012] UKSC 9, [2013] 1 AC 78.

  9. 9.

    Ibid, at [152].

  10. 10.

    See ‘The Funding Code’, Part B, section D, issued by the Community Legal Services Commission: http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/guidance/funding_code.asp.

  11. 11.

    Mulheron Report (2008), chapter 11, at 74 (noted in Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 22.72).

  12. 12.

    For details see Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley’s Actionable Misrepresentation (5th edn, Lexis Nexis, London, 2014) 21.07.

  13. 13.

    Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc [2009] UKSC 6, [2010] 1 AC 696 (noted M Chen-Wishart (2010) 126 LQR 157) (and as explained in Neil Andrews, Contract Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011), 15.36).

  14. 14.

    PD(51M).

  15. 15.

    Ibid, 2.2.

  16. 16.

    Ibid, 2.3.

  17. 17.

    Ibid, 2.5(a).

  18. 18.

    Ibid, 2.5(b).

  19. 19.

    Ibid, 2.1 and 2.3.

  20. 20.

    Ibid, 2.3, 2.5(a).

  21. 21.

    Ibid, 2.3.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, 2.2.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, 2.3.

  24. 24.

    Ibid, 2.5(a) prescribes this need for judicial permission.

  25. 25.

    Ibid, 1.1(b).

  26. 26.

    Ibid, 2.1.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, 2.1.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, 2.5(d).

  29. 29.

    Ibid, 2.5(a).

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid, 2.5(c).

  32. 32.

    CPR 63A; PD(63AA); WB (2018), para 2FA-2.1, summarising cases so far decided (for a complete list, webpage: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/court/financial-list); on contested transfers into this list, for contested transfers into this list, Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland (No 4) [2016] EWHC 207 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 2783, at [40] ( Etherton C); see also Financial List Guide (http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/465590/financial-list-guide.pdf); Briggs IR (2015), n 62 above, 3.20.

  33. 33.

    CPR 63A, para 2(1).

  34. 34.

    CPR 63A, para 1(2).

  35. 35.

    [2005] EWHC 812 (Ch) (Lindsay J).

  36. 36.

    [2013] EWCA Civ 394, [2013] 3 All ER 807.

  37. 37.

    Ali Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 2714, at [1] (Leggatt J); Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2016] UKSC 25, [2016] 1 WLR 2001; Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 1, [2017] 2 WLR 287; Mohammed v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2017] UKSC 2, [2017] 2 WLR 327; R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWCA Civ 811, [2017] 2 WLR 219 (1,282 public law claims, and 646 private law claims, with 257 settlements; ibid, at [2] and [3]).

  38. 38.

    Neil Andrews, ‘Arbitration and the Expanding Circle of Consenting Parties’ in R Nazzini (ed), Transnational Construction Arbitration: Key Themes in the Resolution of Construction Disputes (Informa Publishing, London, 2018), Chap. 5.

  39. 39.

    PD(19B), para 11.

  40. 40.

    See also the summary by Lord Walker in Autologic Holdings plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2005] UKHL 54, [2006] 1 AC 118, at [86].

  41. 41.

    PD(19B), para 3.3.

  42. 42.

    PD(19B), para 4.

  43. 43.

    PD(19B), para’s 3.5–3.9.

  44. 44.

    Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3005 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 1081 (Stewart J).

  45. 45.

    PD(19B), para 8.

  46. 46.

    CPR 19.12(2).

  47. 47.

    Sayers v Merck & SmithKline Beecham plc [2002] 1 WLR 2274, CA; noted M Goldberg (2002) New LJ 437–8 and M Mildred (2002) 65 MLR 597.

  48. 48.

    [2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC), [2010] 3 Costs LR 317.

  49. 49.

    Ibid, at [53] ff.

  50. 50.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 1150, [2012] 1 WLR 657, [2012] 2 All ER 181, [2011] 6 Costs LR 1028.

  51. 51.

    Taylor v Nugent Care Society [2004] EWCA Civ 51, [2004] 1 WLR 1129, at [9].

  52. 52.

    For greater detail, C Hodges, Multi-Party Actions (Oxford University Press, 2001) 5.06 and 5.07.

  53. 53.

    CPR 19.13(b).

  54. 54.

    [2012] UKSC 9, [2013] 1 AC 78.

  55. 55.

    CPR 19.13(c).

  56. 56.

    CPR 19.13(d); on this question, Lord Woolf in Boake Allen Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2007] UKHL 25, at [33].

  57. 57.

    Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3004 (QB), [2017] 1067 (Stewart J), at [52].

  58. 58.

    CPR 19.13(e); and PD(19B), para 13; eg, PD (Coal Mining Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome etc.) [2003] 4 All ER 318.

  59. 59.

    PD(19B), para 9.1.

  60. 60.

    [2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC), [2010] 3 Costs LR 317 (Coulson J).

  61. 61.

    [2017] EWHC 463, [2017] 1 WLR 3539 (Hildyard J).

  62. 62.

    [2004] EWCA Civ 51, [2004] 1 WLR 1129; M Mildred, ‘Personal injury—civil procedure—group actions—group litigation orders’ (2004) JPIL C67, C69.

  63. 63.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 1150, [2012] 1 WLR 657.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, at [54] to [56].

  65. 65.

    Ibid, at [75] and [76].

  66. 66.

    Ibid, at [98] to [103].

  67. 67.

    Ibid, at [104] to [114].

  68. 68.

    Cambridge seminar, 2010.

  69. 69.

    R Mulheron, ‘Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales’ (2008), noted and discussed in Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 22.72–22.75.

  70. 70.

    Sayers v Merck & SmithKline Beecham plc [2001] EWCA Civ 2017, [2002] 1 WLR 2274, CA.

  71. 71.

    Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3004 (QB), [2017] 1067 (Stewart J).

  72. 72.

    [2012] UKSC 18, [2012] 2 AC 337; see also Boake Allen Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2007] UKHL 25, [2007] 1 WLR 1386; and see further Jazztel plc v Revenue and Customs Commrs [2017] EWHC 677 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 3869 (Marcus Smith J).

  73. 73.

    Autologic Holdings plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2005] UKHL 54, [2006] 1 AC 118, at [2].

  74. 74.

    [2017] EWHC 463, [2017] 1 WLR 3539 (Hildyard J).

  75. 75.

    See also on Tew v Bank of Scotland [2010] EWHC 2013 (Ch) (Mann J), concerning mortgage related claims, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 22.69.

  76. 76.

    Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 22.67 n 132; Neil Andrews, The Modern Civil Process (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany, 2008), 10.13.

  77. 77.

    Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2005] UKHL 72, [2006] 1 AC 495.

  78. 78.

    G Scanlan, ‘The Chagos Islanders’ Case—A Question of Limitation?’ (2007) 26 CJQ 292.

  79. 79.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 1150, [2012] 1 WLR 657, [2012] 2 All ER 181, [2011] 6 Costs LR 1028.

  80. 80.

    [2008] EWHC 1729 (Comm), [2008] 2 CLC 258; for a vivid account of the judge’s management of that case, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 22.68.

  81. 81.

    Chandra v Mayor [2017] EWHC 2636 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 929, at [10] (Judge Purle QC).

  82. 82.

    Ibid, at [9] (Judge Purle QC).

  83. 83.

    Ventouris v Mountain [1990] 1 WLR 1370 (Saville J).

  84. 84.

    CPR 19.6(4).

  85. 85.

    [2017] EWHC 2636 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 929, at [9] ff (Judge Purle QC); earlier case law was stated to be no longer applicable.

  86. 86.

    Ibid, at [8] and [15].

  87. 87.

    CPR 19.6(1)(b).

  88. 88.

    R Mulheron, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps rather than Leaps’ (2005) 24 CJQ 424, 442–3, noting Independiente Ltd v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 470 (Ch), at [32], and Howells v Dominion Insurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 552 (Admin), at [26] (Cox J).

  89. 89.

    CPR 19.6(2).

  90. 90.

    CPR 19.6(4).

  91. 91.

    [1972] 2 QB 435, CA.

  92. 92.

    CPR 21.10(1) (proceedings by or on behalf of a child or patient); on representation of children generally in family or CPR proceedings, In re W [2017] EWHC 450 (Fam), [2017] 1 WLR 3451 (Cobb J).

  93. 93.

    [1972] 2 QB 435, 442, CA (Lord Denning MR).

  94. 94.

    Neil Andrews, Principles of Civil Procedure (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1994), 7-011, considering, notably, John v Rees [1970] Ch 345 (Megarry J).

  95. 95.

    Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, HL.

  96. 96.

    Astellas Pharma Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2011] EWCA Civ 752; CPR 19.6(4).

  97. 97.

    Chandra v Mayor [2017] EWHC 2636 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 929, at [9] ff (Judge Purle QC); earlier case law was stated to be no longer applicable.

  98. 98.

    Howells v Dominion Insurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 552 (Admin) (Cox J); noted J Seymour (2005) 24 CJQ 309–315; Price v Rhondda UDC [1923] WN 228; (1923) 130 LT 156 (Eve J); Moon v Atherton [1972] 2 QB 435, 441, Cam (Lord Denning MR); but in Chandra v Mayor [2017] EWHC 2636 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 929, at [11] and [12] (Judge Purle QC), the judge relegated these remarks to (unpersuasive) dicta and furthermore held that developments in the costs liability of non-parties in general had overtaken this provisional analysis by Lord Denning MR; see, also positively, and as noted in the Chandra case, suggestions in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v John Taylor [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 484, 495 (Waller J); and see D Kell (1994) 13 CJQ 233.

  99. 99.

    Andrews ECP (2013), 41.89; Neil Andrews, Principles of Civil Procedure (1994), 7-009. And see D Kell (1994) 13 CJQ 233; J Seymour (2005) 24 CJQ 309–315.

  100. 100.

    CPR 19.6(1).

  101. 101.

    [1910] 2 KB 1021, 1030, 1035, 1040, CA.

  102. 102.

    Andrews ACP (2018), 22.67.

  103. 103.

    As in the claim for economic loss resulting from a maritime collision (the claimants’ total loss, already incurred, was ascertained at the time of the litigation): Monarch SS Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners) [1947] AC 265, HL.

  104. 104.

    [1981] 1 WLR 923, 926 (Dillon J).

  105. 105.

    [1981] Ch 229 (Vinelott J) (not disturbed on this point on appeal, [1982] 1 Ch 204, 222–4, CA).

  106. 106.

    [1981] Ch 229, at 254–5 (Vinelott J).

  107. 107.

    Ibid, at 256.

  108. 108.

    Andrews ACP (2018), 22.68 ff.

  109. 109.

    See the massive citation of discussion at Andrews ACP (2018), 22.69.

  110. 110.

    R Mulheron ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps rather than Leaps’ (2005) 24 CJQ 424, 426–431, 433–5 and 437, and especially 428–30; R Mulheron, ‘Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc: a Century Later, the Ghost of Markt Lives On’ [2009] Comp L 159; J Sorabji, ‘The Hidden Class Action in English Civil Procedure’ (2009) CJQ 498.

  111. 111.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1284, [2011] Ch 345.

  112. 112.

    [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch), [2009] CP Rep 32, at [38] (Morritt C).

  113. 113.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1284, [2011] Ch 345, at [63] and [64] (Mummery LJ).

  114. 114.

    [2011] EWHC 661 (TCC), [2011] 3 All ER 1027 (Akenhead J).

  115. 115.

    Ministry of Justice, July 2009: The Government’s Response to the Civil Justice Council’s Report Improving Access to Justice Through Collective Actions.

  116. 116.

    Ibid, at [11].

  117. 117.

    Financial Services Bill HL Bill 26(2009/10), clauses 18–25.

  118. 118.

    Financial Services Act 2010.

  119. 119.

    R Mulheron, ‘Recent milestones in class actions reform in England: a critique and a proposal’ (2011) 127 LQR 288–315; see also J Sorabji,’ Collective Action Reform in England and Wales’, in D Fairgrieve and E Lein (eds), Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress (Oxford University Press, 2012), Chap. 3.

  120. 120.

    A Higgins, ‘Driving with the Handbrake On: Compensation Class Actions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015’ (2016) 79 MLR 442; A Higgins and AAS Zuckerman, ‘Class Actions come to England- More Access to Justice and More of a Compensation Culture, but they are Superior to the Alternatives’ (2016) 35 CJQ 1–13; R Mulheron, ‘A Spotlight on the Settlement Criteria under the UK’s New Competition Class Action’ (2016) 35 CJQ 14–28; AM Mozetic, ‘Collective Redress: A Case for Opt-out Class Actions in England and Wales’ (2016) 35 CJQ 29–40.

  121. 121.

    s 47D, Competition Act 1998, substituted by Schedule 8 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  122. 122.

    s 47C(9)(d), ibid.

  123. 123.

    s 47C (1), ibid.

  124. 124.

    s 47B(2), ibid.

  125. 125.

    s 47B(4) to (9), ibid; on the certification criteria, A Higgins, ‘Driving with the Handbrake On: Compensation Class Actions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015’ (2016) 79 MLR 442, 454–458.

  126. 126.

    s 47B(7)(a), ibid.

  127. 127.

    s 47B(7)(b), ibid.

  128. 128.

    s 47B(7)c), ibid.

  129. 129.

    s 47B(8), ibid.

  130. 130.

    s 47C(8), ibid. adopting, ibid, at s 47C(9)(c), the definition of DBAs in s 58AA(3), Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

  131. 131.

    s 47B(13), ibid.

  132. 132.

    s 47D(4) to (7), ibid.

  133. 133.

    s 47B(11), ibid.

  134. 134.

    s 47C(9)(d), ibid.

  135. 135.

    s 47C(2), ibid.

  136. 136.

    s 47C(3), ibid.

  137. 137.

    s 47C(5), ibid; the nominated charity is the Access to Justice Foundation (Explanatory Notes to Sect. 81 of the 2015 Act, at para 438).

  138. 138.

    s 47C(6), ibid. For criticism of section 47C(6), A Higgins, ‘Driving with the Handbrake On: Compensation Class Actions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015’ (2016) 79 MLR 442, 458–467 (the provision covers the risk that there is a shortfall in the recovery of costs by the victorious representative from the defendant; but this point is omitted by Higgins).

  139. 139.

    s 47D, Competition Act 1998, substituted by Schedule 8 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  140. 140.

    s 47B(12), ibid.

  141. 141.

    s 49(2A), ibid.

  142. 142.

    s 49(1A) to (1D), ibid.

  143. 143.

    s 49A, ibid.

  144. 144.

    s 49A(5), ibid. R Mulheron, ‘A Spotlight on the Settlement Criteria under the UK’s New Competition Class Action’ (2016) 35 CJQ 14–28.

  145. 145.

    s 49A(8), (9), ibid.

  146. 146.

    s 49B, ibid.

  147. 147.

    European Commission Recommendation of 1 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violation of rights granted under Union law, OJ 2013 L201/60; EU Commission’s Communication on Collective Redress of 11 June 2013, COM(2013) 401 final.

  148. 148.

    Preamble (13) to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the member States and of the European Union ((2013/0185 (COD)), 24 October 2014 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/damages_directive_final_en.pdf ).

  149. 149.

    [2017] CAT 16.

  150. 150.

    s 47B, Competition Act 1998, substituted by Schedule 8 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  151. 151.

    Ibid, at [1].

  152. 152.

    Ibid, at [2].

  153. 153.

    Ibid, at [3].

  154. 154.

    Ibid, at [67].

  155. 155.

    Ibid, at [77], [78].

  156. 156.

    Ibid, at [84], [88], [89].

  157. 157.

    Ibid, at [92] ff; applying s 47B(8), Competition Act 1998, substituted by Schedule 8 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  158. 158.

    Ibid, at [125].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clare College, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Andrews .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Andrews, N. (2018). Multi-party Litigation. In: The Three Paths of Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 65. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74831-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74832-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation