Mass Claims

Mass Claims

Overview

At Travers Smith, our market leading team is regularly instructed to act for clients on large and complex mass claims. We have acted on several of the seminal cases in the development of the field, including some of the largest claims ever brought in the English courts.

Mass claims, which allow groups of claimants - ranging in size from a small group to many millions - to seek redress in a single set of proceedings, are becoming increasingly common in English litigation.

We have a breadth of experience across different types of disputes, including in competition (anti-trust) disputes, securities claims, ESG based allegations and financial services disputes. We have deep experience working on some of the most complex claims in the market.

When working on claims engaging multi-jurisdictional issues, we co-ordinate our work with leading overseas law firms, to provide you with a seamless cross-border service. In picking firms and lawyers best suited to the specific subject matter of the claim in each location, we believe we offer clients a significant advantage over alternative models, where the client is tied into a pre-existing network, regardless of suitability for the matter at hand.

We also understand the potential reputational and commercial impact that mass claims can have on your business, and we are experienced in working closely with PR and crisis management professionals to provide your business with the support you need to mitigate these issues from the outset of the case. 

Selected Experience Includes

Trucks class actions (competition/anti-trust): Acting for a European truck manufacturer defending multiple damages claims brought before the English courts, including by way of class actions, arising from the European Commission's finding of competition infringements in the Trucks market. In the course of defending the class actions, we successfully represented our client in the seminal Supreme Court litigation funding decision in R (PACCAR) v CAT & Ors.

Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L & others v Glencore PLC & Others (securities litigation): Acting for an individual defendant to claims under s.90 FSMA brought by institutional investors against Glencore and certain of its former officers, in relation to Glencore's IPO prospectus.

A UK listed company (ESG litigation): leading the defence of UK High Court proceedings against a UK plc, in which multiple claimants brought parent company liability tort claims in respect of alleged personal injury and human rights abuses in Kenya.

A UK listed company (ESG litigation): acting for a UK plc in defending parent company liability tort claims brought by multiple claimants, alleging sexual harassment and gender-based violence during employment by a Malawian subsidiary company.

Data breach claims: we are currently advising various parties in respect of potential claims arising out of a large-scale data breach.

HP v Autonomy: whilst not a group action, the judgment in the proceedings in which we act for Hewlett Packard companies (HPE) in their US$4 billion fraud claims arising out of the US$11 billion acquisition of Autonomy Corporation plc (culminating in the “tech trial of the century”), is the leading authority on the application of the statutory securities litigation framework in England. In May 2022 the Judge ruled in HPE’s favour on the issue of liability. You can read our detailed briefing on it here.

Mass Claims in England

Group Litigation Orders ("GLO"s):

A GLO is an alternative approach to the bringing of collective claims. A key feature of GLOs is that they are an ‘opt-in’ procedure; in other words, every claimant must individually make their own claim. The GLO then enables claims giving rise to "common or related issues" to be case managed together, with determination of the common issues, which then bind all members of the group, achieved through the trial of lead claims. GLOs are a longstanding feature of the English collective claims landscape and are an important vehicle for the management of multiple claims, including in the ESG space.

Collective Proceedings Orders ("CPO"s):

A CPO is a procedural mechanism introduced under the Competition Act 1998 (as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015) to facilitate collective redress in competition law claims before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). It allows a representative to bring claims on behalf of a group of individuals or businesses who have suffered harm owing to anticompetitive behaviour, such as cartels or abuse of market dominance. CPOs are unique in that they permit both "opt-in" (where class members actively join the claim) and "opt-out" (where all eligible members are included unless they explicitly opt-out) collective proceedings. To grant a CPO, the CAT must determine that the claims are eligible for collective proceedings, which will involve consideration of whether the claims are brought on behalf of an identifiable class, raise common issues and are suitable to be managed collectively.

Representative Actions:

Representative actions under Civil Procedure Rule 19.8 allow one or more individuals to bring or defend a claim on behalf of a group of people who share the same interest in the proceedings. This procedural rule is designed to provide an efficient way to resolve disputes involving multiple parties where the claims or defences are substantially identical. To bring a representative action, the court must be satisfied that: i) all members of the group share the same interest in the claim or defence; and ii) a single representative can adequately represent the interest of the group. Unlike some other collective mechanisms, representative actions do not require members of the group to actively opt in – instead, all individuals with the same interest are automatically included in the action unless the court orders otherwise. The court's ultimate judgment is binding on all represented parties, providing a decisive resolution to the issue.

'Single Claim Form' claims:

This model allows multiple claimants to bring individual claims against the same defendant(s) in a single set of proceedings. This procedural model is often used for large-scale disputes where claimants have distinct but closely related claims arising from a common event or issue, such as environmental disasters, mass torts, or large-scale contractual breaches. Under this approach, multiple claimants join together on a single claim form, but their claims are treated as individual claims, rather than as a collective or representative action. This avoids the strict requirements of representative actions under Civil Procedure Rule 19.8 (such as the "same interest" test) or the formal requirements of a Group Litigation Order. Instead, the claims are managed collectively by the court, allowing for procedural efficiency while preserving the unique aspects of each claimant's case. 

Securities Litigation:

English law provides a statutory regime for disgruntled investors to seek compensation from an issuer of publicly traded securities in respect of loss suffered as a result of misleading or incomplete information disseminated to the market. This regime is contained within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA“). Section 90 provides redress for misleading statements or omissions in listing particulars or prospectuses (albeit it does not apply to an AIM admission document). A claim may be made under section 90 against the issuer of the securities or against any person who took responsibility for the prospectus, e.g. a director of the issuer. An issuer or individual is not liable under section 90 if they reasonably believed (having made such enquiries, if any, as were reasonable) that the statements in the prospectus were true and not misleading, or any matters omitted were properly omitted. Schedule 10A provides redress for misleading statements or omissions in “published information” such as quarterly or annual reports and trading updates in circumstances where: a “person discharging managerial responsibilities” of the issuer (i) knew that, or was reckless as to whether, the statement in question was untrue or misleading, or (ii) knew that the relevant omission involved the dishonest concealment of a material fact; and the person acquiring the securities relied on that published information in circumstances where such reliance was objectively reasonable. The scope of Schedule 10A is narrower than section 90 in a number of respects. Most notably: (i) a claim under Schedule 10A can only be brought against the issuer of the securities, whilst claims under section 90 can also be brought against any person who took responsibility for the prospectus; and (ii) a Schedule 10A claim requires the threshold of dishonesty or recklessness to be met.

ESG Mass tort claims/shareholder actions:

Increased corporate, societal and political focus on ESG has prompted an uptick in ESG-related litigation globally. These claims are emerging in a variety of ways across different jurisdictions, including "greenwashing" claims, climate change litigation, business and human rights claims and environmental contamination litigation. They are very often brought as mass claims and are characterised by their novelty and attempts to push the boundaries of established liability frameworks.

Data Breach claims:

The law around mass claims is evolving rapidly, including in relation to group actions following a data breach. Our team is highly experienced across all aspects of complex and fast-moving litigation, regularly operating at the cutting edge of the most significant disputes, and we offer the legal firepower needed to protect both your legal and reputational interests. We act for defendants to some of the highest-profile mass claims before the English Courts, in particular follow-on damages claims resulting from European Commission decisions. We advise clients on actions for damages, or other relief, flowing from data breaches, including breaches by third parties. In addition, we represent clients in appeals against ICO decisions and on data protection issues arising from broader commercial disputes. We advise pragmatically, drawing on our years of experience of navigating complex claims through the Courts and engaging with data protection authorities. 

What others say

A truly outstanding group, handling mammoth cases with real flair and a very special firm culture.
The Legal 500
The team is notable for its overall excellence. They are well co-ordinated and effective in achieving the objective. They stand out for their swift responsiveness, clear explanations and creative solutions.
Chambers and Partners UK
Travers Smith regularly feature in the very largest litigation, going head-to-head with Magic Circle firms. They have a stellar reputation – a class outfit.
The Legal 500

GET IN TOUCH

full team
Read Caroline Edwards Profile
Caroline Edwards
Read Rob Fell Profile
Rob Fell
Read Heather Gagen Profile
Heather Gagen
Read Stephanie Lee Profile
Stephanie Lee
Read Joseph Moore Profile
Joseph Moore
Read Barney Stannard Profile
Barney Stannard

AWARDS

Related Services

Latest knowledge

Back To Top Back To Top chevron up