Stephen Beck & Ors. v The Police Federation of England and Wales

Where parties abandon a Group Litigation Order application after agreeing an alternative lead-claimant model, the court may depart from the ordinary costs rule. The court should distinguish costs incurred in resolving substantive case-management issues from costs attributable to the abandoned GLO issue. Relevant factors include whether the applicant engaged sufficiently early with an alternative procedure, the scale and likely value of the claims, and whether the hearing would have been required in any event. A broad-brush percentage allocation may be preferable to an expensive detailed assessment of issues. Costs of substantive case-management work may be ordered to be costs in the case, while the party responsible for pursuing the unnecessary or conceded issue may bear an appropriate proportion of the opponent’s costs.

The claimants sought a Group Litigation Order for a large number of claims. The defendant proposed that the litigation should instead proceed through a lead-claimant and stay model, with other claims subsequently dealt with individually. Before the hearing, the claimants accepted that the litigation could be managed by that alternative model and did not pursue the GLO application, although other case-management issues remained disputed.

The court therefore determined only the defendant’s application for the costs of the GLO application. The central issues were whether the ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs should be displaced, how responsibility for the costs should be allocated, and whether an interim payment should be ordered.

1. Costs discretion. The ordinary rule under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2(2), is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, but the court may make a different order. The claimants accepted that the threshold requirements for a GLO under r 19.11 were met, but the court retained discretion whether a GLO was the proportionate management method.
2. Earlier engagement with alternatives. The claimants should have recognised earlier that the proceedings might be more proportionately managed without a GLO and should have engaged sooner with the defendant’s lead-claimant proposal. The comparison with Bennett and ors v Equifax Ltd [2022] EWHC 2168 (QB) showed legitimate concerns where many claims were likely to be low-value or potentially non-viable, and where the upfront costs of establishing and maintaining a group register could be substantial.
3. Costs requiring a different allocation. The parties’ extensive discussions about liability, disclosure, concessions, selection of lead claimants and related management matters were part of managing multi-party litigation and should be costs in the case. The hearing would have been required in any event because other issues required determination. The claimants should nevertheless bear 50% of the defendant’s costs attributable to the GLO application, including the costs of submissions on costs.
4. Interim payment. Given the very high total costs claimed and the broad-brush approach adopted, an interim payment of £50,000 was appropriate, rather than the 60% sought. The remaining costs were costs in the case.

This was a first-instance determination of the defendant’s costs application concerning the claimants’ abandoned GLO application. No lower-court decision or appeal was stated.