Allianz Funds Multi- Strategy Trust (on behalf of AllianzGI Best Styles Global Equity Fund) & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC

In group litigation, the court has a broad case-management discretion to require claimants to particularise individual reliance cases. The timing and extent of that requirement must reflect proportionality, manageability, the effect on trial timetables, costs, and the information needed for sampling.

It may be proportionate to require selected claimants to answer detailed or abbreviated questionnaires, while deferring wider particularisation until the initial sample has been assessed. A previous case-management approach need not be followed where the claimant group is materially larger or compliance would impose an unrealistic burden.

A change in the name or legal personality of a fund which always owned the relevant shares may be treated differently from adding an entirely wrong fund, provided the fund remains identifiable.

This was the first case management conference in claims by approximately 130 claimants representing approximately 550 funds or sub-funds against Barclays under sections 90 and 90A of FSMA 2000.

The parties agreed that the claims should proceed by split trial, with the Barclays-facing issues to be determined at Trial 1. The principal dispute concerned whether all claimants should answer a detailed reliance questionnaire before the next case management conference, or whether a sample and abbreviated questionnaire would suffice. The court also addressed directions concerning standing, limitation, sampling, and an application to add five Amundi funds as claimants.

1. Reliance and case management. The court accepted that claimants should generally plead their individual reliance cases. The critical question was timing. That question involved an imperfect balancing exercise between proper particularisation, engagement and settlement on the one hand, and delay, cost, burden and manageability on the other.
2. The court departed from the broader approach adopted in Various Claimants v G4S Ltd, [2022] EWHC 1742 (Ch), Various Claimants v Serco Group plc, [2022] EWHC 2052 (Ch), and Manning and Napier Fund Inc v Tesco plc, [2017] EWHC 3296 (Ch). Given the size of the claimant group and the time required for full compliance, it was not manageable or proportionate to require every claimant to complete the detailed questionnaire before Trial 1.
3. The court adopted a middle course. Each party was to select 10 funds to answer the full questionnaire and 40 further funds to answer a slimmed-down questionnaire by 31 May 2024. The abbreviated questionnaire was to use Various Claimants v Standard Chartered PLC, [2023] EWHC 2756 (Ch), as a template. Sampling and the need for further questionnaires could be reconsidered at the second case management conference.
4. Split trial and directions. Issues 1 to 18 were directed to Trial 1. Issues concerning standing, reliance, causation and limitation were to be considered further at the second case management conference, with Issues 20 to 29 initially determined by reference to a sample.
5. Amendment of fund names. The court reconsidered its earlier analysis. The wrong-entity category in Various Claimants v G4S Ltd concerned a fund which never owned the shares. It did not apply where the same fund had always owned the shares but its name or legal personality had changed through renaming or merger. The five Amundi funds remained identifiable, and permission was granted to add them as claimants.

First-instance case management decision. The judgment records an earlier judgment in the same litigation concerning the Naming Application, [2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch), but that decision was not under appeal in this judgment.