header-logo header-logo

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

Group dynamics

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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll