“A Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) means an order made under rule 19.11 to provide for the case management of claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law (the “GLO issues”).”
“(1) The court may make a GLO where there are or are likely to be a number of claims giving rise to the GLO issues. (2) A GLO must – (a) contain directions about the establishment of a register (the “group register”) on which the claims managed under the GLO will be entered; (b) specify the GLO issues which will identify the claims to be managed as a group under the GLO; and (c) specify the court (the “management court”) which will manage the claims on the group register. (3) A GLO may – (a) in relation to claims which raise one or more of the GLO issues – (i) direct their transfer to the management court; (ii) order their stay until further order; and (iii) direct their entry on the group register; (b) direct that from a specified date claims which raise one or more of the GLO issues should be started in the management court and entered on the group register; and (c) give directions for publicising the GLO.” (a) contain directions about the establishment of a register (the “group register”) on which the claims managed under the GLO will be entered; (b) specify the GLO issues which will identify the claims to be managed as a group under the GLO; and (c) specify the court (the “management court”) which will manage the claims on the group register. (a) in relation to claims which raise one or more of the GLO issues – (i) direct their transfer to the management court; (ii) order their stay until further order; and (iii) direct their entry on the group register; (b) direct that from a specified date claims which raise one or more of the GLO issues should be started in the management court and entered on the group register; and (c) give directions for publicising the GLO.”
“(1) where a judgment or order is given or made in a claim on the group register in relation to one or more GLO issues – (a) that judgment or order is binding on the parties to all 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; and (b) the court may give directions as to the extent to which that judgment or order is binding on the parties to any claim which is subsequently entered on the group register.”
“[1] Statements of case must be concise. They must plead only material facts, meaning those necessary for the purpose of formulating a cause of action or defence, and not background facts or evidence. Still less should they contain arguments, reasons or rhetoric. These basic rules were developed long ago and have stood the test of time because they serve the vital purpose of identifying the matters which each party will need to prove by evidence at trial.”
“14.1 The management court may direct that the GLO claimants serve “Group Particulars of Claim” which set out the various claims of all the claimants on the Group Register at the time the particulars are filed. Such particulars of claim will usually contain – (1) general allegations relating to all claims; and (2) a schedule containing entries relating to each individual claim specifying which of the general allegations are relied on and any specific facts relevant to the claimant. 14.2 The directions given under paragraph 14.1 should include directions as to whether the Group Particulars should be verified by a statement or statements of truth and, if so, by whom. 14.3 The specific facts relating to each claimant on the Group Register may be obtained by the use of a questionnaire. Where this is proposed, the management court should be asked to approve the questionnaire. The management court may direct that the questionnaires completed by individual claimants take the place of the schedule referred to in paragraph 14.1(2). 14.4 The management court may also give directions about the form that particulars of claim relating to claims which are to be entered on the Group Register should take.”
“This paragraph plainly envisages that particulars of claim will be served. Particulars of claim must comply with CPR Pt 16 … relevant facts must in our view be pleaded. If they are facts generally applicable to all claimants, they may be pleaded in group particulars of claim; if they are specific to a particular claimant they may be set out in a schedule …”
“In my judgment NEC Semi-Conductors is authority for the proposition that, even where multiple proceedings are managed through a GLO, the individual claim forms must still satisfy the basic pleading requirement of setting out the material facts relied upon and the causes of action to which they relate. The necessary information may be pleaded in a concise and summary form … but in the absence of this basic minimum the claim form will not fulfil its primary purpose of defining the issues and enabling the defendant to know what case it has to meet.”
“[36] The logic of a global claim demands, however, that all the events which contribute to causing the global loss be events for which the defender is liable. If the causal events include events for which the defender bears no liability, the effect of upholding the global claim is to impose on the defender a liability which, in part, is not legally his. That is unjustified. A global claim, as such, must therefore fail if any material contribution to the causation of the global loss is made by a factor or factors for which the defender bears no legal liability. That point has been noted in Keating at paragraph 17-18, in Hudson at paragraph 8-210, more clearly in Emden at paragraph [231], in the American cases, and most clearly by Byrne J in Holland v Kvaerner at 85H and 86D … The point has on occasions been expressed in terms of a requirement that the pursuer should not himself have been responsible for any factor contributing materially to the global loss, but it is in my view clearly more accurate to say that there must be no material causative factor for which the defender is not liable. [37] Advancing a claim for loss and expense in global form is therefore a risky enterprise. Failure to prove that a particular event for which the defender was liable played a part in causing the global loss will not have any adverse effect on the claim, provided the remaining events for which the defender was liable are proved to have caused the global loss. On the other hand, proof that an event played a material part in causing the global loss, combined with failure to prove that that event was one for which the defender was responsible, will undermine the logic of the global claim. Moreover, the defender may set out to prove that, in addition to the factors for which he is liable founded on by the pursuer, a material contribution to the causation of the global loss has been made by another factor or other factors for which he has no liability. If he succeeds in proving that, again the global claim will be undermined.”
“For the reasons pleaded at paragraph 12(b) of the Reply, the Claimants cannot reasonably be expected to provide particulars of the dates, times or locations of the particular oil spills and leaks contributing to the contamination of the aquifer prior to provision of disclosure by the Defendants and obtaining expert evidence. Without prejudice to that position, it is likely that many of the oil spills and leaks in and around Ogale from the Ogale Pipelines and Infrastructure have collectively contributed to the contamination of the aquifer system and drinking water in Ogale.”
“the collation of all the details gives a sound foundation … to the litigation as a whole and to the choice of ten test cases. It avoids the possibility of further applications and the wasted costs which that would cause and court time, and further additional delay dealing with further inquiries which might be required at a later date.”
“[21] … The adjudication of the Claimants’ various claims raises the issues that it raises, not the issues that the Claimants would like to say that it raises, or only the issues that they would like to have adjudicated. I must form a view of the extent to which any given issue will arise. It does not cease to arise merely because the Claimants would like to run the case without it. True it is that the manner in which the Claimants' Particulars of Claim are formulated relies on the sort of common issues … that I have referred to above, and that they do not go into the circumstances of individual transactions. However, that does not mean that the individual circumstances will not be an issue in these claims. It can be safely predicted, on the basis of the evidence and submissions before me, that if the claims were pleaded out the banks’ Defences would take the point that the actual circumstances rendered the relevant terms, or the relationship, fair because, for example, the claimant in question had sufficient understanding, and the transaction made personal sense for that individual. That those circumstances are capable of being relevant is, in my view, quite plain from the wording of the legislation, whose pertinent words I have emphasised above. At the end of the day that proposition was not disputed by counsel for the claimants. [22] In those circumstances it seems to me to be quite wrong to allow the GLO issues to be phrased in such a way as involve a shutting out of individual circumstances from the scope of the litigation. It is not an accurate way of describing the litigation and amounts to a form of pre-judgment of some issues.”