Stephen Beck and Others v The Police Federation of England and Wales

Hearing dates: 13 March 2023

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 29 th March 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

SENIOR Master Fontaine

This judgment is restricted to the determination of the Defendant's application for the costs of the Claimants' application for a Group Litigation Order (“GLO”) dated 13 October 2022. At the hearing of that application on 13 March 2023 the Claimants did not pursue their application for a GLO, having agreed with the Defendant that the multi-party litigation could be appropriately managed by an agreed ‘lead claimant’ model. Although there were still a number of areas of dispute between the parties, I was able to deal with these at the hearing, save for the costs of the application.

The relevant chronology is as follows.

i) A letter of claim was sent on 28 September 2021 and responded to by the Defendant's solicitors' (“OC”) letter of 26 October 2021.

ii) On 21 December 2021 the Claimants' solicitors (“KP”) sent to OC draft grounds for a GLO, a draft GLO and an updated schedule of Claimants.

iii) There was then an agreed stay for discussions for a period of three months.

iv) On 11 March 2022 OC sent a letter stating that their view was it was inappropriate to deal with the claims by way of a GLO and setting out their reasons for that approach. It was suggested that the claims be transferred to the County Court and allocated to the small claims track.

v) KP resisted that approach in its reply dated 4 April 2022, in particular the suggestion that the claims would be suitable for the small claims track given the volume of claims, the complexity of the relevant law and the number of Claimants with serious impact claims with a personal injury element to their claims.

vi) By letter dated 4 May 2022 KP wrote to say they considered that progress and negotiations had stalled and proposed a timetable for disclosure by the Defendant, and for the Claimants to provide details of 25 “exemplar claimants” and a numbered schedule of the cohort of Claimants. It was stated that if that approach could not be agreed they would issue a GLO application, and attached a draft GLO and supporting documents.

vii) By letter of 5 August 2022 OC reiterated that it was not appropriate to issue claims, or that if claims were issued they considered that a GLO was not an appropriate or proportionate way to manage the proposed proceedings and set out the reasons why they had reached that view. A “lead claimant model” was proposed which it was submitted had significant advantages over a GLO in the context of these claims.

viii) KP replied the same day with some questions on the proposed lead claimant model, which were answered by OC's letter of 26 August 22, reiterating that the proper and proportionate way for the claims to be managed was through a lead claimant and stay process, and any non-lead claims being subsequently determined in the small claims track of the County Court.

ix) KP's reply of 21 September 2022 maintained that a group action was the correct procedural way forward and the best way to ensure efficient and cost effective management. The benefits of a GLO were set out in that letter.

x) KP followed this with a letter of 29 November 22 again reiterating their view that a GLO was the appropriate model and that OC's proposed “lead claimant model” was not appropriate, setting out reasons in detail. The GLO application had by then been issued on 13th October 2022.

xi) In a further letter of 6 January 2023 KP commented on OC's reference to the then recent decision in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50, and enclosed a copy of the front sheet of the issued claim form (specifically stated not to be by way of service).

xii) On 10 February 2023, KP wrote as follows:

“As regards to the GLO application itself, we have had the opportunity to consider several recent decisions concerning the management of group claims, including those of Trower J. in Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions [2022] EWHC 3344 (Ch) and O'Farrell J. in Municipio De Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 330 (TCC). While we remain of the view that a GLO application is the most appropriate way to manage the issues arising from this group litigation, we will also be inviting the court in the alternative to make directions for the effective management of the claims, both existing and anticipated. We will aim to provide you with further details of these proposed alternative directions in due course, so that you will have sufficient time to consider them ahead of the hearing listed for 13–14 March.”

xiii) And in their letter dated 24 February 2023 KP wrote:

“3. Having considered your clients evidence and the recent case law, it seems to us but it ought to be possible for the parties to identify common ground and directions for the sensible future management of these claims, irrespective of whether such directions are made within the framework of a formal GLO. we therefore invite you to consider the attached draught order and, in advance of the party's finalising their skeleton arguments, to identify what parts of the proposed order are in substance disputed.

………

“5. Accordingly, while we remain of the view that a GLO based on established practise an rules would be the most cost effective...