In a recent court ruling, Judge Emma Kelly rejected a request for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) which would have consolidated thousands of Plevin claims (relating to the undisclosed commissions on Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) sales) into a single legal action. In the process, she cast an uncomfortable spotlight on the challenges of large-scale legal claims such as these.
Lack of Proper Claim Screening
The GLO request had been put forward by a well-known claimant law firm. However, it appears as though they failed to properly vet the thousands of potential claimants proposed to be included in the GLO. The defendants, including major banks like Barclays and HSBC, revealed that the law firm’s data featured inconsistences and named claimants such as ‘Darth Vadar’ and ‘Michael Mouse’, raising serious doubts about the quality of the claims and due diligence.
High Costs
Far from reducing costs, the firm’s proposal to use a small number of test cases would likely end up being more costly than individual claims. Judge Kelly estimated that the costs for such an approach could exceed £20 million.
The Practicalities of Individual Claims vs GLOs
Despite concerns about the potential strain on the court system, courts are already handling large numbers of Plevin claims effectively and other claimant firms are active in the area, meaning that a GLO is not needed to alleviate pressures.
Judge Kelly further pointed out that individual claims under the existing small claims procedure were not unfair to claimants, including those with low-value cases.
Furthermore, the various claims also involve different defendants and PPI products – meaning that each would still need to be evaluated individually even with a GLO. A single omnibus claim form and ‘one size fits all’ approach would not be efficient, convenient or realistic, and instead would add unnecessary complexity to the case.
Conclusion
The rejection of the GLO highlights the complexities and challenges of mass legal actions, especially when dealing with large numbers of individual claims. Judge Kelly’s decision underscores the importance of relying not on umbrella approaches but instead evaluating the practicalities of managing large-scale litigation through a more targeted and flexible case management system.
Stressing that her decision did not mean omnibus claim forms would never have a place in Plevin litigation, Judge Kelly suggested that a more tailored approach could be considered, such as categorising claims by defendant, product, or common issue – which could streamline the process without overwhelming the court system.
