header-logo header-logo

Group dynamics

01 February 2013 / Julian Miller , Daniel Silver
Issue: 7546 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Julian Miller & Dan Silver report on potential adverse costs liabilities in group litigation

The general rule in litigation is that all claimants and all defendants are jointly and severally liable for all costs awarded against them (see, eg, Stumm v Dickson (1889) 22 QBD 529). However, in Ward v Guiness Mahon [1996] 1 WLR 894, the Court of Appeal held that the claimants’ liability for adverse common costs should be several and not joint. The judge in Andrew Brown & Others v InnovatorOne Plc [ 2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) litigation had to consider the applicability and relevance of the Ward decision to a modern action by a group of investors in the context of a very different litigation landscape.

Ward concerned an action by investors against the sponsor of a prospectus seeking subscriptions for shares issued by certain retail companies. The investors’ claims failed and a costs order was made against the lead plaintiffs on a joint and several basis.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll