A GLO is an alternative approach to the bringing of collective claims. A key feature of GLOs is that they are an ‘opt-in’ procedure; in other words, every claimant must individually make their own claim. The GLO then enables claims giving rise to "common or related issues" to be case managed together, with determination of the common issues, which then bind all members of the group, achieved through the trial of lead claims. GLOs are a longstanding feature of the English collective claims landscape and are an important vehicle for the management of multiple claims, including in the ESG space.

A CPO is a procedural mechanism introduced under the Competition Act 1998 (as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015) to facilitate collective redress in competition law claims before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). It allows a representative to bring claims on behalf of a group of individuals or businesses who have suffered harm owing to anticompetitive behaviour, such as cartels or abuse of market dominance. CPOs are unique in that they permit both "opt-in" (where class members actively join the claim) and "opt-out" (where all eligible members are included unless they explicitly opt-out) collective proceedings. To grant a CPO, the CAT must determine that the claims are eligible for collective proceedings, which will involve consideration of whether the claims are brought on behalf of an identifiable class, raise common issues and are suitable to be managed collectively.

Representative actions under Civil Procedure Rule 19.8 allow one or more individuals to bring or defend a claim on behalf of a group of people who share the same interest in the proceedings. This procedural rule is designed to provide an efficient way to resolve disputes involving multiple parties where the claims or defences are substantially identical. To bring a representative action, the court must be satisfied that: i) all members of the group share the same interest in the claim or defence; and ii) a single representative can adequately represent the interest of the group. Unlike some other collective mechanisms, representative actions do not require members of the group to actively opt in – instead, all individuals with the same interest are automatically included in the action unless the court orders otherwise. The court's ultimate judgment is binding on all represented parties, providing a decisive resolution to the issue.

This model allows multiple claimants to bring individual claims against the same defendant(s) in a single set of proceedings. This procedural model is often used for large-scale disputes where claimants have distinct but closely related claims arising from a common event or issue, such as environmental disasters, mass torts, or large-scale contractual breaches. Under this approach, multiple claimants join together on a single claim form, but their claims are treated as individual claims, rather than as a collective or representative action. This avoids the strict requirements of representative actions under Civil Procedure Rule 19.8 (such as the "same interest" test) or the formal requirements of a Group Litigation Order. Instead, the claims are managed collectively by the court, allowing for procedural efficiency while preserving the unique aspects of each claimant's case. 

English law provides a statutory regime for disgruntled investors to seek compensation from an issuer of publicly traded securities in respect of loss suffered as a result of misleading or incomplete information disseminated to the market. This regime is contained within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA“). Section 90 provides redress for misleading statements or omissions in listing particulars or prospectuses (albeit it does not apply to an AIM admission document). A claim may be made under section 90 against the issuer of the securities or against any person who took responsibility for the prospectus, e.g. a director of the issuer. An issuer or individual is not liable under section 90 if they reasonably believed (having made such enquiries, if any, as were reasonable) that the statements in the prospectus were true and not misleading, or any matters omitted were properly omitted.

Schedule 10A provides redress for misleading statements or omissions in “published information” such as quarterly or annual reports and trading updates in circumstances where: a “person discharging managerial responsibilities” of the issuer (i) knew that, or was reckless as to whether, the statement in question was untrue or misleading, or (ii) knew that the relevant omission involved the dishonest concealment of a material fact; and the person acquiring the securities relied on that published information in circumstances where such reliance was objectively reasonable. The scope of Schedule 10A is narrower than section 90 in a number of respects. Most notably: (i) a claim under Schedule 10A can only be brought against the issuer of the securities, whilst claims under section 90 can also be brought against any person who took responsibility for the prospectus; and (ii) a Schedule 10A claim requires the threshold of dishonesty or recklessness to be met.

Increased corporate, societal and political focus on ESG has prompted an uptick in ESG-related litigation globally. These claims are emerging in a variety of ways across different jurisdictions, including "greenwashing" claims, climate change litigation, business and human rights claims and environmental contamination litigation. They are very often brought as mass claims and are characterised by their novelty and attempts to push the boundaries of established liability frameworks.

The law around mass claims is evolving rapidly, including in relation to group actions following a data breach. Our team is highly experienced across all aspects of complex and fast-moving litigation, regularly operating at the cutting edge of the most significant disputes, and we offer the legal firepower needed to protect both your legal and reputational interests. We act for defendants to some of the highest-profile mass claims before the English Courts, in particular follow-on damages claims resulting from European Commission decisions. We advise clients on actions for damages, or other relief, flowing from data breaches, including breaches by third parties. In addition, we represent clients in appeals against ICO decisions and on data protection issues arising from broader commercial disputes. We advise pragmatically, drawing on our years of experience of navigating complex claims through the Courts and engaging with data protection authorities.