Investors in Barclays v Barclays PLC

In complex fraud litigation, a split trial is not required merely because it may save time or costs. Where the court can fairly and efficiently determine the principal issues together, that course is generally preferable, particularly where findings on those issues may promote settlement. The appropriate approach is fact-sensitive and depends on the scale and burden of the litigation. Standing may properly be determined for all claims as a threshold issue before a lengthy trial. The court may permit expert evidence on a potentially relevant issue where it cannot yet determine whether that issue will ultimately matter in law. Further particulars of causation and full reliance evidence may properly be deferred until the outcome of an earlier sample trial is known.

This was the second case management conference in group litigation brought by investors against Barclays PLC. The court had previously addressed naming, pleading and split-trial issues in the Naming judgment, [2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch), and the First CMC Judgment, [2024] EWHC 235 (Ch).

The parties disagreed about the sample cases, the issues to be tried at Trial 1, the timing of reliance and causation evidence, expert evidence on share price, disclosure and witness statements. The central issue was whether Trial 1 should be confined principally to defendant-facing issues or should also determine reliance, causation, share price and related issues in selected sample cases.

1. Disposition. The court directed that seven sample cases be tried, with reserve cases managed alongside them. Following clarification after judgment, C279 was substituted for C276 as a sample case, and C276 was retained as a reserve case.
2. Trial structure. Issues concerning reliance, causation, share price, limitation and the additional issues of principle were directed to Trial 1. Although a split trial can save time and costs, it is not preferable as a matter of principle where the court can determine the relevant issues together. The court considered that an eight-week trial, extended to ten weeks if necessary, could accommodate the issues for the seven sample cases. Findings on all issues apart from quantum were more likely to promote settlement.
3. The approach in Various Claimants v Standard Chartered PLC was not applied because that was a materially larger case involving more sample cases and a substantially longer trial. The present case did not impose a comparable burden. The trade-off identified in Various Claimants v G4S Ltd was also considered, but the parties’ agreement to progress the remaining claims meant that postponing reliance and causation would not avoid the associated work.
4. Outstanding standing issues were directed to be tried for all claims as a threshold issue before the parties and court committed to the long trial. Full reliance questionnaires and further particulars of causation were refused. Reliance was likely to depend principally on documents and inherent probabilities, while causation involved factual, expert and legal issues better addressed after Trial 1.
5. Expert evidence on share price, including regression analysis, was permitted because it might bear on causation and whether individual claimants would have purchased shares and at what price. It was presently impossible to conclude that the evidence would be legally irrelevant.

This was a first-instance case management decision. The judgment records earlier procedural judgments in the same litigation: the Naming judgment, [2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch), and the First CMC Judgment, [2024] EWHC 235 (Ch). No appeal history is stated.