Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd
[2024] UKSC 24
Claire Smyth v British Airways PLC & Anor
2 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2173 (KB)
High Court
A woman tried to sue airlines for compensation on behalf of many passengers. The judge said she couldn't because each passenger's case was too different, and the main reason for the lawsuit was to make money for the people funding it, not help passengers. The judge also said that passengers could easily claim compensation themselves for free, so the big lawsuit wasn't necessary.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Claire Smyth brought a representative action against British Airways and easyJet for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 for cancelled or delayed flights.
- •The claim initially covered approximately 116,000 flights and potentially millions of passengers.
- •The claim was funded by Mr. John Armour, Ms. Smyth's employer, with a 24% deduction from any recovered compensation.
- •The defendants argued that the claim did not meet the requirements for a representative action under CPR rule 19.8.
- •The claimant proposed a multi-step process to refine the class of represented passengers, progressively removing those with arguable defenses.
- •The airlines had free direct claims procedures (DCPs) available to passengers.
Legal Principles
Representative actions require the representative and represented parties to have the 'same interest in a claim'.
CPR rule 19.8
'Same interest' means the same interest for all practical purposes, or in effect the same cause of action or liability. The court considers likely defenses at the outset.
Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping C Ltd [2021] EWCA (Civ) 1389; Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50
The Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google relaxed the 'same interest' requirement, distinguishing between conflicting and merely divergent interests.
Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50
The court has discretion whether to allow a claim to proceed as a representative action, considering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR r 1.2(a)
Successive amendments to the class definition cannot be used to overcome the fundamental requirement of 'same interest' at the outset.
Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; Jalla v Shell; Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP [2023] EWHC 398 (Comm)
Outcomes
The claim was struck out.
The claimant and represented parties did not share the same interest; the proposed multi-step class refinement was impermissible; the claim's dominant motive was the financial interests of the funders, not consumer benefit; the 24% deduction was excessive and disproportionate; the claim imposed an enormous and disproportionate burden on the airlines.
The claimant was directed not to act as a representative.
Same as above.
Similar Cases
Wirral Council as administering authority of Merseyside Pension Fund v Indivior PLC
[2023] EWHC 3114 (Comm)
Commission Recovery Limited v Marks & Clerk LLP & Anor
[2023] EWHC 398 (Comm)
On The Beach Limited & Ors v Ryanair UK Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2694 (Comm)
Phillip Gwyn James Evans v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 876