Various Claimants v Serco Group plc

In complex group litigation, sampling may be used as a proportionate means of managing individual issues where structured particulars allow the defendant to understand and evaluate the claims and select an effective sample. It is generally disproportionate to require every claimant to provide full disclosure and witness statements on reliance before sampling where targeted questions address the relevant concerns. A defendant need not respond formally to detailed further particulars of quantum where the response would require substantial expert and legal work, its benefit is uncertain, and the issues can be addressed later if quantum is reached.

The ruling concerned the first case management conference in two sets of claims under section 90A of and Schedule 10A to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The claimants sought compensation for alleged losses arising from untrue or misleading published information, omissions and dishonest delay concerning Serco shares.

The court considered sampling, disclosure and witness statements on reliance, and whether Serco should respond formally to amended further particulars of quantum.

1. The agreed split-trial and sampling process was directed to proceed. Full disclosure and witness statements on reliance from all claimants before sampling were disproportionate and inconsistent with the overriding objective.
2. The structured IPORs and annexed questions were sufficient to enable understanding and evaluation of the claims and effective sampling. Further evidence from non-sample claimants could be required later where appropriate.
3. Serco was not required to respond formally to the amended further particulars of quantum. Such a response was unconventional, would require substantial expert and legal work, and offered no material procedural advantage at that stage.