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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll