Key Facts
- •Claimants initially sought a Group Litigation Order (GLO) for a multi-party data breach claim involving 10,000-13,000 claimants.
- •Defendant opposed the GLO, proposing a 'lead claimant' model.
- •Claimants initially resisted but later agreed to the 'lead claimant' model, abandoning their GLO application.
- •The court considered the costs of the Claimants' GLO application.
- •The Defendant's statement of costs totalled £282,894.
Legal Principles
The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party (CPR 44.2(2)).
CPR 44.2(2)
The court has discretion on costs even if a party is unsuccessful. The court can make a different order.
CPR 44.2(2)
When considering a GLO application, the applicant should consider whether any other order would be more appropriate, such as consolidation or using representative parties (CPR 19BPD Para. 2.3).
CPR 19BPD Para. 2.3
Outcomes
Claimants ordered to pay 50% of the Defendant's costs of the GLO application.
While the threshold for a GLO was met, the Claimants should have engaged earlier with the Defendant's 'lead claimant' proposal. The court considered the high costs claimed and the fact that many issues were dealt with regardless of the GLO application. The significant discussions between parties on numerous legal and case management issues were considered part of the overall claim management.
Interim payment of £50,000 ordered.
The court deemed the Defendant's claimed costs (£282,894) excessively high and reduced it considering hourly rates and work undertaken.