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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll