Abstract
English ‘multi-party’ litigation can take one of three forms. First, in representative proceedings the representative claimant brings an action on behalf of himself and others (the represented class). This form of proceeding is an opt-out system. It is used mostly in the context of obtaining declaratory or injunctive relief. The Government in July 2009 rejected a proposal that there should be a generic opt-out class action in England for compensatory claims. Secondly, there is scope for mass claims under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Such litigation involves ‘opting-in’ by each individual. The GLO procedure is the main means of handling claims for compensation involving large groups of similarly affected persons or entities. The main characteristics of the GLO system are: the court must approve a group litigation order; the court will exercise extensive case management and issue directions; decisions on ‘common’ issues are binding on, and in favour of, the group. Thirdly, there is the procedure known as consolidated litigation or multiple joinder of parties. Consolidation or joinder of co-claimants is a long-established established means of accommodating multi-party actions. It is also an opt-in procedural mechanism.
Neil Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), Chap. 14.02 ff; Neil Andrews, Contracts and English Dispute Resolution (Tokyo, 2010), Chap. 20; Neil Andrews, English Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press, 2003), 41.57 ff; Neil Andrews, ’Multi-party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions,’ Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (2001): 249, 250–7; P. Cashman, Class Action: Law and Practice (Sydney, 2007); S. Degeling and J. Seymour, ‘Collective Claims in Unjust Enrichment,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 29 (2010): 449; C. Hodges, Multi-party Actions (Oxford University Press, 2001); C. Hodges, ‘The Europeanisation of Civil Justice: Trends and Issues,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 26 (2007): 96; C. Hodges, The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal Systems (Oxford: Hart, 2008); Susan M.C. Gibbons, ‘Group Litigation, Class Actions and Lord Woolf’s Three Objectives—A Critical Analysis,’ Civil Justice Quarterly (2008): 208; M. Mildred, ‘Group Actions,’ in The Law of Product Liability, ed. G.G. Howells (2001); R. Mulheron, The Class Action in Common Law Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart, 2004); R. Mulheron, ‘Some Difficulties with Group Litigation Orders—And Why a Class Action is Superior,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 24 (2005): 40; R. Mulheron, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps Rather than Leaps,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 24 (2005): 424; R. Mulheron, ‘Justice Enhanced: Framing an Opt-out Class Action for England,’ Modern Law Review 70 (2007): 550–80; Rachael Mulheron’s 2008 paper on ‘Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales’ http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/collective_redress.pdf; R. Mulheron, ‘A Missed Gem of an Opportunity,’ Euro Business LR (2011): forthcoming; R. Mulheron, ‘Recent Milestones in Class Actions Reform in England: A Critique and a Proposal,’ Law Quarterly Review 127 (2011): 288–315; Jillaine Seymour, ‘Representative Proceedings and the Future of Multi-Party Actions,’ Modern Law Review 62 (1999): 564–84; G. Wagner, ‘Collective Redress—Categories of Loss and Legislative Options,’ Law Quarterly Review 127 (2011): 55–82; Lord Woolf, ‘Access to Justice: Final Report’ (June 1996) 223–248; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (London, 2006) 12.20 ff.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CPR 19, Section II; Neil Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 14.02 ff; Neil Andrews, English Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 41.57 ff; Neil Andrews, ‘Multi-party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions,’ Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (2001): 249, 250–7.
- 2.
CPR 19, Section III; and Practice Direction 19B; Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England, 14.09 ff; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.10 ff.
- 3.
Andrews, ‘Multi-party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions,’ 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, resulted in over 3,000 claimants seeking personal injury damages against a multi-national company concerning its manufacturing activities in South Africa.
- 4.
Declaratory relief has been obtained in complex litigation brought by a Government agency under statutory powers. This litigation is of potential benefit to millions of individuals. It concerns the validity of charges made by ‘high street banks’ in respect of overdrawn current accounts. This is a matter falling within European consumer legislation. Thus in the bank charges litigation, the Court of Appeal has declared that charges for unauthorised overdrafts on current bank accounts are subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999): Abbey National plc v. Office of Fair Trading [2009] 2 WLR 1286. This case shows how declaratory relief obtained on behalf of a very large community of interested persons can become the foundation of individual redress or adjustment of rights.
- 5.
Ministry of Justice July 2009: the Government’s Response to the Civil Justice Council’s Report Improving Access to Justice Through Collective Actions.
- 6.
[2005] EWHC 812 (Ch).
- 7.
Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.62 ff.
- 8.
On the position in European countries, C. Hodges, The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal Systems (Oxford: Hart, 2008); C. Hodges, ‘The Europeanisation of Civil Justice: Trends and Issues,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 26 (2007): 96, 114 ff; C. Hodges, ‘Collective Redress in Europe: The New Model,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 29 (2010): 370; as for the position elsewhere in the common law world, R. Mulheron, The Class Action in Common Law Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart, 2004); for possible English changes in the context of consumer claims for compensation, see the Department of Trade and Industry’s ‘Representative Actions in Consumer Legislation’, consultation paper, 2006; on line at http://www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/page30259.html (contemplating representative proceedings by designated bodies to obtain damages on behalf of named individuals, rather than a class of consumers in general); for a succinct comparative set of reflections, E. Silvestri, ‘The Difficult Art of Legal Transplants: The Case of Class Actions,’ Revista de Processo 187 (2010): 99–112.
- 9.
CPR 19.6; on CPR 19.6(4), see Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) [2007] EWHC 522 (QB).
- 10.
Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, HL; on which, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.83.
- 11.
Oxford University v. Webb [2006] EWHC 2490 (QB), Irwin J applying CPR 19.6, and considering, at [56] ff, M Michael’s (Furrier’s) Limited v. Askew (CA, unreported, 23 June 1983) and other authorities; Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) [2007] EWHC 522 (QB).
- 12.
The costs point was been affirmed in Howells v. Dominion Insurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 552 (QB), on which J. Seymour (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 309–315; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.63, 41.89 noting Price v. Rhondda UDC [1923] WN 228; (1923) 130 LT 156, Eve J; for the suggestion that the approach underlying these decisions should be re-considered, Waller J in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. John Taylor [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 484, 495.
- 13.
R. Mulheron, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps Rather Than Leaps,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 24 (2005): 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 (QB), at [26].
- 14.
On the ‘non-party’ status of represented persons, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.62 ff.
- 15.
American Law Institute, ‘Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation’ (Discussion draft, 2007): reporter Samuel Issacharoff (New York University); associate reporters Robert H. Klonoff (Missouri-Kansas Law Schools), Richard A. Nagareda (Vanderbilt Univ L School), Charles Silver (University of Texas L School, Austin)— Chap. 1 ‘Definitions and General Principles’, Chap. 2 ‘Aggregate Treatment of Common Issues’, Chap. 3 ‘Aggregate Settlements’; this document contains substantial references to US literature); J. Bronsteen and O. Fiss, ‘The Class Action Rule,’ Notre Dame L R 78 (2006): 1419; Stephen B. Burbank, ‘The Class Action in American Securities Regulation,’ Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 4 (1999): 321 (esp at 322–6, 332–6, on the history and prospects of federal class actions in the US); Oscar Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2007), 390 ff; the Duke Law School symposium (co-ordinated by T Rowe): ‘Debates Over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective’ (Duke/Geneva symposium, 2000): (2001) 11 Duke Jo of Int & Comp Law 157–421: Jack B. Weinstein (USA); Deborah H. Hensler (USA); Edward H. Cooper (USA); H. Erichson, ‘Doing Good, Doing Well,’ Vand L R 57 (2004): 2087; B. Hay and D. Rosenberg, ‘“Sweetheart” and “Blackmail” Settlement in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy,’ Notre Dame L R 75 (2000): 1377; E.D. Hensler, ‘The New Social Policy Torts: Litigation as a Legislative Strategy…,’ DePaul Law Review 51 (2001): 493; R.L. Marcus, ‘Reassessing the Magnetic Pull of Megacases on Procedure,’ DePaul Law Review 51 (2001): 457 (considering complex commercial, public law and mass tort litigation); A. Miller, ‘Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality and the “Class Action Problem”,’ Harv LR 92 (1979): 664; Pennsylvania, University of: Symposium on Class Actions and Mass Torts: Edward H. Cooper, ‘Aggregation and Settlement of Mass Torts,’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (2000): 1943; Edward R. Becker and Jerome M. Marcus, ‘Penn Law School Mass Torts Symposium: A Response to Professor Cooper’, ibid., 2001; Richard L. Marcus, ‘Benign Neglect Reconsidered’, ibid. 2009; David L. Shapiro, ‘Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client,’ Notre Dame L Rev 73 (1998): 913 (considered by Silberman, see citation in this note, below, at 210–2); J. Resnik, ‘From Cases to Litigation,’ Law and Contemporary Problems 54 (1991): 5; R. Phillips, ‘Class Action & Joinder in Mississippi,’ Miss LJ 71 (2001): 447; P. Schuck, Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in Courts (Harvard University Press, 1986); E. Sherman, ‘Consumer Class Actions: Who Are the Real Winners?’ Me L Rev 56 (2004): 223; Linda Silberman, ‘The Vicissitudes of the American Class Action—With a Comparative Eye,’ Tulane J Int Comp Law 7 (1999): 201; Charles Silver, ‘Class Actions…,’ in Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics, eds. B. Bouckaert and G. De Geest (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2000),vol V, 194 ff; S.C. Yeazell, From Mediaeval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987) (historical survey of representative proceedings in England and the US).
- 16.
J. Sorabji, ‘The Hidden Class Action in English Civil Procedure,’ Civil Justice Quarterly (2009): 498, 511.
- 17.
CPR 19.6(1).
- 18.
Markt case, [1910] 2 KB 1021, 1030, 1035, 1040, CA; In the Markt case, [1910] 2 KB 1021, the Court of Appeal stated, in terms which are technically obiter dicta (on that point, Neil Andrews, Principles of Civil Procedure (1994) 7-005), that the claims for compensation by 44 cargo-owners against the defendant carrier, based on alleged breach of separate contracts, could not proceed by representative proceedings. Vaughan-Williams LJ, ibid., at 1030, emphasised the possibly heterogeneous nature of the set of (contractual) bills of lading applicable between the cargo-owners and the carrier. Fletcher-Moulton LJ, ibid. at 1035, took the severe view that an individual claim for damages (whether or not founded on breach of contract) is by definition not a claim for common relief, and therefore incompatible with the spirit of representative proceedings, as earlier expressed by Lord Macnaghten in Duke of Bedford v. Ellis [1901] AC 1, 8, HL, who said: ‘Given a common interest and a common grievance, a representative suit was in order if the relief sought was in its nature beneficial to all whom the plaintiff proposed to represent.’ The dissentient on the representative action point in the Markt case, Buckley LJ, [1910] 2 KB 1021, 1048, considered that a representative action could proceed on the basis of a declaration of liability for breach of contract; Buckley LJ’s suggestion foreshadowed Vinelott J’s decision in the Prudential case, [1981] Ch 229, on which see below.
- 19.
Mulheron, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps Rather Than Leaps,’ 424, 426–31, 433–5, 437, esp 428–30; R. Mulheron, ‘Emerald Supplies Ltd v. British Airways plc: A Century Later, the Ghost of Markt Lives On,’ Comp L (2009) 159–79.
- 20.
Sorabji, ‘The Hidden Class Action in English Civil Procedure,’ 498.
- 21.
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.
- 22.
EMI Records Ltd v. Riley [1981] 1 WLR 923, 926, Dillon J.
- 23.
[2003] EWHC 470 (Ch), Morritt V-C, at [23].
- 24.
[2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2011] 2 WLR 203.
- 25.
[2009] EWHC 741 (Ch); [2009] CP Rep 32, at [38].
- 26.
[2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2011] 2 WLR 203.
- 27.
Ibid., at [63].
- 28.
Ibid., at [65].
- 29.
Ibid., at [64].
- 30.
R. Mulheron, ‘A Missed Gem of an Opportunity,’ Euro Business LR (2011): forthcoming.
- 31.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd (No 1) [1981] Ch 229, Vinelott J (not disturbed on this point on appeal, [1982] 1 Chaps. 204, 222–4, CA); on Vinelott J’s 2-stage procedure, Andrews, English Civil Procedure 41.75 ff; J.A. Jolowicz [1980] Cambridge Law Journal 237.
- 32.
[1991] 2 QB 206 (CA); Independiente Ltd v. Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 470 (Ch), at [29].
- 33.
Ibid., 234–35.
- 34.
For example, Duke of Bedford v. Ellis [1901] AC 1, HL; The Kyriaki [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 484, CA.
- 35.
John v. Rees [1970] Ch 345, 371.
- 36.
R. Mulheron, ‘Opting In, Opting Out, and Closing the Class:…,’ Canadian Business LJ 50 (2010): 376, 388–391.
- 37.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd (No 1) [1981] Ch 229, Vinelott J (not disturbed on this point on appeal, [1982] 1 Chaps. 204, 222–4, CA); on Vinelott J’s 2-stage procedure, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 41.75 ff; J.A. Jolowicz [1980] Cambridge Law Journal 237.
- 38.
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]: ‘The key features and normal effect of any GLO are that it identifies the common issues which are a pre-condition for participation in a GLO; it provides for the establishment and maintenance of a register of GLO claims; it gives the managing court wide powers of case management, including the selection of test claims and the appointment of a lead solicitor for the claimants or the defendants, as appropriate; it provides for judgments on test claims to be binding on the other parties on the group register; and it makes special provision for costs orders.’
- 39.
For greater detail, C. Hodges, Multi-party Actions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 5.06 and 5.07.
- 40.
CPR 19.13(b).
- 41.
Ibid. (c).
- 42.
Ibid. (d); on this question, Lord Woolf in Boake Allen Ltd v. Revenue and Customs [2007] UKHL 25 at [33].
- 43.
Ibid. (e).
- 44.
Subtleties, including the position of (i) discontinuing or (ii) settling or (iii) dismissing individual claimants, were considered in Sayers v. Merck & SmithKline Beecham plc [2002] 1 WLR 2274, CA; noted M. Goldberg (2002) New LJ 437–8 and M. Mildred (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 597.
- 45.
CPR 19.12(2).
- 46.
CPR 19.12(1)(a): a judgment or order made in a claim on the group register in respect of a common issue (a ‘GLO issue’) binds all the parties to ‘other claims that are on the group register at the time the judgment is given or the order is made unless the court orders otherwise’.
- 47.
Addis v. Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488, HL; Perera v. Vandiyar [1953] 1 WLR 672, CA; Kenny v. Preen [1963] 1 QB 499, CA; Lord Lloyd in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344, 373 E, HL; ‘Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages’, (Law Commission Report No 247, 1997), 5.71–5.73; cf Design Progression Ltd v. Thurloe Properties Ltd [2004] EWHC 324 (Ch); [2005] 1 WLR 1, Peter Smith J (exemplary damages against a landlord for statutory wrong; and remarks ibid at [137] ff); R. Cunningham, ‘Should Punitive Damages be Part of the Judicial Arsenal in Contract Cases?’ LS 26 (2006): 369.
- 48.
Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicerstershire [2001] UKHL 29; [2002] 2 AC 122 (noting Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1223, 1227, HL, per Lord Devlin).
- 49.
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], by Chadwick LJ, and [81], by Hale LJ; on ‘access to justice’ and conditional fees and the decline of legal aid, see Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chaps.’s 9, 35; for observations in the context of multi-party proceedings, Hodges, ‘The Europeanisation of Civil Justice: Trends and Issues,’ 96, 98 ff.
- 50.
Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England, Chap. 9 at 9.19 ff.
- 51.
See ‘The Funding Code’, Part B, at section D, issued by the Community Legal Services Commission: at http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/guidance/funding_code.asp.
- 52.
Besides the Mulheron Report (2008), Chap. 11, at p. 74 (on which see n 48 below); see the following comment by Dr C. Hodges at the 2006 Oxford conference on multi-party actions is cited with his permission: ‘The funding of large cases remains complex and controversial. The size of the funding required and the ‘loser pays’ rule require sophisticated arrangements to be put in place in order both to fund ongoing costs and to cover the risk of losing. There is an impasse over how complex cases should be run in future. The previous freedom with which Legal Aid was dispensed has disappeared. Public funding is restricted, made available for cases only on a prioritised basis, and subject to considerable bureaucracy. The Legal Services Commission is now very wary of funding large cases, and prefers to fund test cases. Only one case (Sabril, alleged visual field constriction, made by Sanofi-Aventis) is currently funded by the LSC: the action is proceeding with test cases.’
- 53.
Reproducing the list at http://hmcourts_service.gov.uk/cms/150.htm.
- 54.
[2010] EWHC 203 (Ch).
- 55.
Sayers v. Merck & SmithKline Beecham plc [2001] EWCA Civ 2017; [2002] 1 WLR 2274, CA.
- 56.
Boake Allen Ltd v. Revenue and Customs [2007] UKHL 25; [2007] 1 WLR 1386.
- 57.
Autologic Holdings plc v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2005] UKHL 54; [2006] 1 AC 118, at [2].
- 58.
Other collectively suffered wrongs which might produce (in some instance have already produced) such claims are: defective pharmaceutical drugs; insidious industrial injuries; child abuse cases affecting large numbers, often spread over many years; defective educational, health, or other public services; over-charging or defective provision of banking, financial, or pensions services (however, here there is good access to justice provided by various ombudsmen; but multiple claims against the banks are pending in England (2008), see Mulheron Report (2008), Chap. 17 (‘Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales’ http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/collective_redress.pdf); ibid. at Chap.’s 8, 9, 10, she notes the moderate success of consumer protection initiated by the Office of Fair Trading or the Consumer Association under the Competition and Unfair Terms legislation or Regulations.
- 59.
Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England, 10.13: ‘An example of mediation’s flexibility concerns a group litigation action brought by parents of deceased children against a children’s hospital trust (Liverpool: Alder Hey Hospital). The hospital had removed organs from dead children without their parents’ permission. The claim for damages proceeded for some time. The procedural judge (Senior Master Robert Turner) then successfully recommended mediation before an outsider. A settlement was agreed, consisting of five elements: a very modest amount of compensation; a grant by the hospital towards relevant research; an undertaking by the Government to issue better guidelines for hospitals; a memorial to the children; a public apology by the doctors concerned.’
- 60.
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2005] UKHL 72; [2006] 1 AC 495.
- 61.
G. Scanlan, ‘The Chagos Islanders’ Case-a Question of Limitation?’ Civil Justice Quarterly 26 (2007): 292.
- 62.
[2010] EWHC 203 (Ch).
- 63.
Ibid.
- 64.
Statement by Senior Master Robert Turner, cited in Andrews, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England, 302.
- 65.
Ministry of Justice July 2009: the Government’s Response to the Civil Justice Council’s Report Improving Access to Justice Through Collective Actions.
- 66.
Ibid., at [11].
- 67.
Financial Services Bill HL Bill 26(2009/10), clauses 18–25.
- 68.
Financial Services Act 2010.
- 69.
‘Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales’ http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/collective_redress.pdf
- 70.
- 71.
Mulheron Report (2008), ibid., at pp. 9 ff; 144 ff.
- 72.
Ibid., Chap. 3.
- 73.
Ibid., Chap. 12.
- 74.
Ibid., Chap. 11 at p. 74 she notes that the Legal Services Commission funded 133 multi-party actions in 2000; in 2002/3 this had fallen to 45; in 2006/7 it had fallen to 4; and of the 293 actions since 2000, 156 had concerned child abuse, 34 health matters including pharmaceutical problems, and 27 prisoner claims.
- 75.
Ibid., Chap. 7.
- 76.
Ibid., Chap. 20.
- 77.
Ibid., Chap. 14.
- 78.
Ibid.
- 79.
Ibid.
- 80.
Ibid., Chap. 13.
- 81.
At the April 2008 meeting in Turin, Professor Isabel Tapia Fernandez explained the Spanish position since 2000: and she cited a case where hundreds of vehicle owners were enabled to claim loss resulting from being trapped on a toll-road for a very long period.
- 82.
S. Modenesi and G. Gross, ‘The Lawyer’ 21 April 2008 p. 29, noting Art 140B, amending the Italian Consumer Code; effective end of June 2008; an opt-in device (including possibility of joining after judgment and pending an appeal); 16 accredited consumer protection associations can initiate; need for court permission; no punitive damages; scope for conciliation over the payment of damages to individuals if judgment given against defendant; causes of action not confined to contract claims.
- 83.
C. Hodges, The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal Systems (Oxford: Hart, 2008).
- 84.
Mulheron Report (2008), Chap. 21.
- 85.
- 86.
Ministry of Justice July 2009: the Government’s Response to the Civil Justice Council’s Report Improving Access to Justice Through Collective Actions.
- 87.
R. Mulheron, ‘Recent Milestones in Class Actions Reform in England: A Critique and a Proposal,’ Law Quarterly Review 127 (2011): 288–315.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Andrews, N. (2012). Multi-party Litigation. In: The Three Paths of Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2294-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2294-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2293-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2294-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)