Group Litigation: Claimant: An Overview

The primary purpose of group litigation is (in the words of Lord Woolf’s 1996 Access to Justice Report (the Woolf Report)) to “provide access to justice where large numbers of people have been affected by another’s conduct, but individual loss is so small that it makes an individual action economically unviable”. Although much has changed since the Woolf Report, this remains the bedrock for the group claims jurisdiction. 

Multi-party litigation is not a new phenomenon in England and Wales. It existed before the Woolf reforms but, in the three decades since the Woolf Report, group litigation orders and group litigation generally have grown and evolved. What was once a niche and rarely used form of collective management for discrete case types has expanded into an effective and common tool used in a variety of courts and tribunals.

The types of cases that are collectively managed in 2025 are varied. Cases concerning claims about consumer credit, financial services, environmental issues, data protection, product liability, breach of contract and medical fault have all recently been brought under some form of group management. Additionally, the types of claimants relying on these mechanisms have expanded, from consumers and individuals to charities, SMEs and even big business.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has gained a particular focus in the group litigation space due to the availability of “opt-out” collective actions. Claims on behalf of consumers and businesses in sectors as diverse as transport (trains, trucks, maritime car carriers), financial services (interchange fees) and consumer technology (Apple App Store, Google Play Store, PlayStation Play Store) have been certified by the CAT, with an even wider range of cases awaiting certification. The range of cases issued in the CAT has brought with it criticism from some groups, who have accused lawyers and third-party funders of casting non-competition claims as competition claims so that they can be brought in the CAT and take advantage of this mechanism. These complaints seem unjustified, however, with the CAT demonstrating that it will take a considered approach to whether it will certify a claim or not. 

Although it was intended that “opt-out” claims would be expanded beyond the CAT to non-competition claims, successive governments have been slow to recognise the advantages to the opt-out regime and to bring about reform in this area. The nearest equivalent structure for non-competition claims – the representative action – was significantly curtailed by the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google. Following that judgment, successive applications for representative action claims have been refused by the High Court, thereby demonstrating the narrow basis on which representative claims are available.  

The successes of the group litigation regime have brought intense lobbying against its further expansion. Many of the companies that have been the target of successive group claims have put significant resources into lobbying groups. Lobbying has been particularly targeted at third-party litigation funding, and has alleged that the industry is “shady”, or does not act in the best interests of the general public. Third-party funding is often vital for claimants, who typically do not have the financial resources of the defendants, seeking redress through collective actions, as it shifts much of the financial risk of proceedings away from litigants and onto their lawyers and financiers, and allows smaller value claims to be brought.

As the statutory mechanisms for group claims have stood still, the courts have sought to use different case management powers to manage claims involving large numbers of claimants. The courts have demonstrated that their case management powers are flexible and wide-ranging, and so can overcome some of the perceived downsides of the current group litigation order structure. Of particular concern for the courts seems to be the perceived costs associated with managing large groups of claimants under the group litigation order structure, particularly in circumstances in which groups of claimants are represented by multiple law firms. Recently, courts seem to have preferred claimants to bring multiple claims by way of an “omnibus” claim form, with those proceedings then being managed by the court on a bespoke basis.  

Outside of the civil courts and the CAT, other tribunals also have processes for managing group claims. In the Employment Tribunal (ET), group cases (known as “multiples”) have developed in recent years, particularly to accommodate claims against some of the UK’s largest employers. Group claims concerning workers’ rights (including holiday pay and the National Minimum Wage) have been particularly prominent in recent years, as too are claims for equal pay against local authorities, clothing retailers and supermarkets. The ET has been developing its technology and processes to accommodate these large-scale claims in the future.

Despite the focus of lobbyists to restrict the sector, law firm activity in group claims continues to expand. Some firms have been active in claimant-side group litigation for decades, and newer disputes-only firms have cemented their place over the last few years, bringing varied group litigation claims. It is not uncommon now to see larger full-service firms expanding their litigation practices to include group claims teams, with other well-established international firms acting for both claimants and defendants.