David Hammon & Ors v University College London

A group litigation order is available where a number of claims give rise, or are likely to give rise, to common or related issues of fact or law. Meeting that threshold does not require the court to make the order. The court must apply the overriding objective and consider whether ordinary case-management powers can manage the claims fairly, economically and efficiently. Those powers may replicate features of a GLO, including consolidation, test-case trials, stays, costs sharing and bespoke directions. Generic GLO issues cannot resolve claimant-specific liability or quantum. Where claims are already consolidated and few further claims are likely, precedent, res judicata and bespoke directions may provide sufficient certainty and consistency.

The claimants were current or former students of University College London who alleged breaches of contract arising from industrial action and measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic. They sought a Group Litigation Order covering common contractual, liability and damages issues. UCL opposed the application, arguing that the claims could be managed through consolidation, test cases, stays and the court’s general case-management powers.

The litigation had previously been stayed for eight months to permit participation in a statute-backed ADR process, following the judgment of Senior Master Fontaine in Hamon and ors v University College London [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB). The central issue was whether a GLO was necessary and proportionate, or whether conventional case management would adequately manage the claims.

The GLO application was refused. The court directed that the litigation should proceed through conventional case management, including test cases and stays of the remaining claims.

1. Threshold. Under Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the claims satisfied the threshold for a GLO. They involved more than 5,000 claims concerning students, common UCL contractual terms, and alleged effects of industrial action and Covid-19. Following Tew v Bank of Scotland [2010] EWHC 203 (Ch), GLO issues identify the claims to be managed as a group and should not be confused with every issue ultimately required to determine them.
2. Discretion. Satisfying the threshold did not require a GLO. The court had to apply the overriding objective and assess whether a GLO would promote fairness, save costs, and enable timely and efficient disposal. The parties’ proposed case-management arrangements were substantially similar, and both accepted that liability and quantum could be addressed through test cases. A GLO would delay the litigation and add unnecessary cost.
3. Binding effect and ordinary powers. Decisions in test cases concerning common contractual terms would bind claimants in the consolidated actions through precedent and res judicata. Generic GLO issues could not determine claimant-specific liability or damages. Any joint issues outside those doctrines could be addressed by bespoke directions, consistently with the approach identified in Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions & Ors at [81]. The court also held that the effect of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR 46.6 could be imported into a case-management order, preserving fair costs sharing.
4. Directions. The claimants were required to answer UCL’s request for further information by 1 September 2024 and provide schedules of information in monthly batches of 2,000 from 1 October 2024. Future claims were to be issued in the Central Office of the King’s Bench Division and immediately stayed until judgment in the test cases, with notice of the order in pre-action correspondence. Costs and consequential matters were adjourned to 19 July 2024.

The judgment records that, on 24 May 2023, Senior Master Fontaine stayed the proceedings for eight months to permit participation in a statute-backed ADR process. Her judgment was reported as Hamon and ors v University College London [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB).

Senior Master Cook subsequently refused the GLO application and directed conventional case management of the consolidated claims.