Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Various Claimants v Serco Group PLC

26 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 119 (Ch)
High Court
People sued Serco for losing money on their shares. A judge decided which people would be part of a smaller trial to decide individual cases. The judge wanted to keep the trial manageable, and not include everyone who sued, to make it fair and quicker.

Key Facts

  • Claimants seek compensation for losses related to Serco Group Plc shares (2006-2013) under section 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
  • Claims allege losses from reliance on untrue/misleading published information or dishonest delay in publishing information.
  • A split trial was ordered: Trial 1 addresses claimant standing and common issues (fraud, published information content/omissions, dishonest delay); Trial 2 addresses individual issues (reliance, causation, loss, quantum, limitation) for a sample of claimants.
  • Claimant reliance is categorized as direct reliance and indirect reliance (market reliance and price reliance).
  • Twelve claimants allege dishonest delay without reliance on published information.
  • Disputes remain on the composition of the sample claimants for Trial 2, particularly concerning indirect reliance claims.

Legal Principles

Split trials are appropriate in large-scale claims to manage complexity and promote efficiency.

G4S case and Falk J's judgment in [2022] EWHC 2052 (Ch)

Sampling in group litigation should balance achieving guidance on individual issues with avoiding unwieldiness.

Judge's own reasoning and previous decision in Various Claimants v G4S Plc [2022] EWHC 1742 (Ch)

Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 allows for extended limitation periods if facts relevant to the cause of action were deliberately concealed.

Limitation Act 1980

Outcomes

The court rejected the defendant's proposal to include all non-direct reliance claimants in Trial 2.

Including all indirect reliance claims would significantly increase the size and complexity of Trial 2, detracting from a just, efficient, and cost-effective resolution. The additional evidence required, especially for price reliance claims and section 32 Limitation Act arguments, outweighs the benefit of resolving all claims at once.

The court also rejected the defendant's proposal to expand the existing sample claimants by adding five more.

The additional claimants' characteristics (e.g., pure market reliance, size of claim) are not sufficiently distinct to justify expanding the sample. The existing sample adequately represents the range of claim types and issues.

The approved sample for Trial 2 consists of MC2, MC3, MC4, MC9, MC12, MC13, and MC22-23, including all listed funds or accounts for each claimant.

This sample is considered appropriately balanced and proportionate, providing sufficient guidance on the key issues without undue complexity.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.