header-logo header-logo

Group litigation orders: proceed with caution

10 March 2021 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7924 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
42010
Masood Ahmed investigates advertising costs in group litigation
  • Civil Procedure Rules on group litigation orders (GLOs).
  • The GLO and the parties’ submissions.
  • Judgment: advertising costs are not recoverable costs.

As group litigations are becoming increasingly common, the recent case of Weaver & Others v British Airways Plc [2021] EWHC 217 (QB), [2021] All ER (D) 66 (Feb) provides valuable guidance on the issue of whether the costs of advertising a group litigation order (GLO) are recoverable.

Civil Procedure Rules on GLOs

The procedural rules governing group litigation are set out in Part III of CPR 19 and the rules governing GLOs are contained in CPR 19.10. CPR 19.10 defines a GLO as ‘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 court may, pursuant to CPR 19.11(3)(c), give directions for publicising the GLO.

Brief facts

The litigation concerns a group litigation action claim for damages brought against

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll