Various Claimants Listed in the Schedules to the Claim Forms v Entain Plc

In large shareholder claims under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the decision whether to split a trial is an essentially pragmatic case-management exercise. There is no fixed rule that reliance must be tried with liability or that all claimant-side issues must be deferred. The court should assess likely cost savings, manageability, evidential overlap, fairness, delay, settlement prospects and the possibility of a clean split, while furthering the overriding objective. Where the issues concerning the defendant’s conduct are likely to narrow the relevant counterfactuals, reliance and causation may properly be tried with quantum at a later trial. Preparatory disclosure may nevertheless be ordered before the first trial, while witness statements on deferred issues may be postponed and revisited.

Two groups of shareholders brought claims against Entain under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, alleging misleading statements, omissions and delayed disclosure concerning historic bribery in Entain’s Turkish business. The claims, involving more than 100 claimants and substantial alleged losses, raised issues concerning standing, defendant conduct, PDMR knowledge, reliance, causation, limitation and loss.

The parties agreed that two trials were required and that quantum would be determined at Trial Two. They disagreed whether reliance, causation and limitation should also be deferred. They further disagreed about the extent of preparation for Trial Two before Trial One. The central issue was the appropriate division of issues between the two trials.

1. The court ordered a split trial. Trial One would determine standing, save for the duration of the aftermarket, together with issues concerning Entain’s conduct, misstatements, omissions, delay, PDMR knowledge and deliberate concealment. Trial Two would determine reliance, causation, loss and quantum, together with the duration of the aftermarket and when fraud or concealment could reasonably have been discovered for limitation purposes.

2. The applicable approach was pragmatic and fact-sensitive. The court adopted the checklist identified in Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd v Philips Electronics UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch), including cost, trial preparation, witness inconvenience, complexity, prejudice, duplication, delay, appellate fragmentation and whether a clean split could be achieved. The varied outcomes in earlier FSMA cases showed that no one-size-fits-all approach applied.

3. Deferring reliance and causation was justified because findings at Trial One about the actionable statements or omissions, PDMR knowledge and their timing would narrow the relevant counterfactuals. Trying claimant-side issues earlier risked substantial wasted evidence and expense on scenarios that later findings might make irrelevant. Causation naturally went with quantum, and reliance and causation were closely connected to the same documents, witnesses and counterfactual analysis.

4. The court gave directions for preparation. All sample claimants were to give disclosure on Trial Two issues, except potential alternative investments. Witness statements on reliance, causation, limitation and loss were not required before Trial One, but the timing could be revisited if later justified by effective case management.

First-instance case-management decision following the first CMC for six related claims. The judgment records an earlier joint case-management order made by Andrew Baker J on 22 July 2025.