Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust & Ors v Barclays Plc

CourtChancery Division
JudgeMr Justice Leech
Neutral Citation[2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch)
Date25 October 2024
Year2024
CounselMs Helen Davies Kc,Mr Michael Watkins,Mr Tom Foxton,Mr Jonathan Nash Kc,Mr Alex Barden,Ms Carola Binney
Approved Judgment: Leech J Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC FL 2020 000051
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch)
FL-2020-000051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
FINANCIAL LIST (CH D)
25 October 2024
Before:
MR JUSTICE LEECH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B E T W E E N:
ALLIANZ FUNDS MULTI-STRATEGY TRUST
(on behalf of ALLIANZGI BEST STYLES
GLOBAL EQUITY FUND) AND OTHERS
Claimants
- and –
BARCLAYS PLC Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MS HELEN DAVIES KC, MR MICHAEL WATKINS and MR TOM FOXTON
(instructed by Latham & Watkins (London) LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
MR JONATHAN NASH KC, MR ALEX BARDEN and MS CAROLA BINNEY
(instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
Hearing dates: 22-23 July 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPROVED JUDGMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 25th October 2024 by
circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National
Archives.
Approved Judgment: Leech J Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC FL 2020 000051
Mr Justice Leech:
I. The Applications
1. By Application Notice dated 28 March 2024 (the “Strike Out Application”) the
Defendant, Barclays plc (the “Bank”), applied to strike out 241 of the Claimants’
claims under section 90A (“S.90A”) and Schedule 10A (“Schedule 10A”) of the
Financial Services and Markets 2000 (“FSMA”) on the basis that the Claim Form and
Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action in relation to those
individual claims or, alternatively, for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2 because
those claims have no real prospect of success. The Strike Out Application was
supported by the fourth witness statement of Mr Oliver Middleton also dated 28 March
2024 (“Middleton 4”). Mr Middleton is a partner in Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham
& Watkins”), the Bank’s solicitors.
2. The Bank’s case was (and is) that the Claimants do not allege and cannot prove that the
relevant funds or sub-funds acquired, continued to hold or disposed of the Bank’s
shares in reliance on published information within the meaning of Schedule 10A,
paragraph 3 (“Paragraph 3”). It was also the Bank’s case (and remains its case) that
the Claimants have not alleged and cannot prove that they suffered loss as a result of a
delay by the Bank in publishing information within the meaning of Schedule 10A,
paragraph 5 (“Paragraph 5”). The Bank does not apply to strike out any of the
Claimants’ claims under section 90 (“S.90”).
3. On 30 May 2024 the Claimants filed the fifth witness statement of Ms Rebecca Hogan
in answer to the Strike Out Application and on 26 June 2024 they filed an amended
version of that witness statement (“Hogan 5”). Ms Hogan is a partner in Signature
Litigation LLP (“Signature”), the Claimants’ solicitors, and she exhibited the expert’s
report of Mr Riccardo Curcio dated 17 December 2021 and the expert’s report of Dr
Andrew Hildreth also dated 17 December 2021 which had been filed or exchanged in
the RSA Litigation. The Bank pointed out that the Court had not granted permission to
the Claimants to rely on expert evidence but did not object to the Court considering it.
4. By Application Notice dated 26 June 2024 the Claimants applied for permission to
amend their Particulars of Claim and their Particulars of Quantum (the “Amendment
Approved Judgment: Leech J Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC FL 2020 000051
Application”). The Claimants did not apply to amend their case in relation to
Paragraph 3 but to amend their case in relation to Paragraph 5 and the parties were
agreed that the Court could deal with this application at the hearing of the Strike Out
Application. Ms Helen Davies KC, who appeared with Mr Michael Watkins and Mr
Tom Foxton on behalf of the Bank, approached the Strike Out Application on the
assumption that the Court could consider the proposed amendments in deciding
whether to strike out the relevant claims or to grant reverse summary judgment and I do
the same. When I refer to the “Particulars of Claim” and the “Particulars of
Quantum” or “POQ”, therefore, I intend to refer to the draft Amended Particulars of
Claim and the draft amended Particulars of Quantum for which the Claimants applied
for permission to amend.
II. Background
5. I set out the detailed background to this action and its procedural history in my
judgment on the Claimants’ applications to amend the names of individual Claimants in
the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim and to substitute a number of additional
Claimants: see [2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch) at [1] to [44]. I also set out the procedural
developments between that judgment and the first Case Management Conference
(“CMC1”) in my judgment dated 12 January 2024 following that hearing: see [2024]
EWHC 235 (Ch) at [1] to [7]. In relation to the issue of reliance I ordered 20 Claimants
to complete the Reliance Questionnaire and 80 Claimants to complete the Reliance
Questionnaire Lite: see [8] to [18]. I brought the procedural developments up to date in
my judgment dated 2 July 2024 following the second case management conference
(“CMC2”): see [2024] EWHC 2124 (Ch).
6. In this judgment, I adopt the defined terms and abbreviations which I have used in each
of the three earlier judgments. It should be obvious from the context what those terms
mean without the need to repeat those definitions here. Further, the issues which I have
to decide on the two applications before me and my reasoning ought to be intelligible to
any reader without the need to repeat the detailed background and procedural history
again. However, if there is any doubt about the meaning of the terms which I use or the
background to the present applications, I refer the reader to the passages which I have
identified above.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors
    • United Kingdom
    • Commercial Court
    • October 2, 2025
    ...[37]. Note also ACL Netherlands BV v Hewlett-Packard The Hague BV [2022] EWHC 1178 (Ch) at [505]-[506] and Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust v Barclays Plc [2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch) (cases under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s.90A and Sch.10A Pt 2, respectively; same rule applie......
  • Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • March 25, 2025
    ...this application has now been brought by SC plc because of the recent decision of Leech J in Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and ors v Barclays plc [2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch) (“Barclays”) in which he struck out similar claims, and which SC plc says are indistinguishable from the present claim......
  • Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • March 25, 2025
    ...this application has now been brought by SC plc because of the recent decision of Leech J in Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and ors v Barclays plc [2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch) (“Barclays”) in which he struck out similar claims, and which SC plc says are indistinguishable from the present claim......