California State Teachers' Retirement System & Ors v Boohoo Group PLC

In substantial claims under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the starting point is that all issues which can reasonably be tried together should be determined at the first trial, save where there is a good case for deferral. Reliance should ordinarily be tried with liability where it can be accommodated and the parties can prepare for it. Potential overlap with causation does not, by itself, justify postponing reliance. Case management is fact-sensitive and must reflect the overriding objective, the issues, scale, practicality, fairness and court resources. Narrative disclosure requires a specific and evidenced category of documents, with a real prospect of existence and sufficient importance to justify the costs of review and disclosure. Generalised requests based on informational asymmetry are insufficient.

Institutional and consumer investors brought claims against Boohoo Group PLC under section 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. They alleged that published information about Boohoo’s Leicester supply chain was untrue or misleading, omitted material information, or involved dishonest delay in publication.

At the first case management conference, the parties agreed to a split trial and sampling of reliance issues. They disagreed whether reliance should be tried with liability in Trial 1 or with causation and quantum in Trial 2. The claimants also sought narrative documents, early disclosure and additional custodians. The court determined the appropriate trial division and disclosure directions.

1. Trial division. Reliance was directed to be tried in Trial 1, listed to start in October 2027 if the listing permitted. Although reliance may overlap with causation, the overlap was too theoretical to justify separating the issues. Reliance could be tried by sampling, with findings binding in later stages for claimants within the relevant reliance category. Claimants who failed to prove reliance would drop out; those who succeeded would proceed to prove causation and loss in light of the Trial 1 findings.
2. There was no one-size-fits-all approach to case management in section 90A claims. The court had to apply the overriding objective by reference to the particular issues, scale, complexity, practicality, fairness and allocation of court resources. Earlier decisions deferring reliance did not establish an orthodox rule. Where reliance could reasonably be tried at the first trial, it should ordinarily be dealt with then.
3. Narrative documents. Under CPR Practice Direction 57AD, a request required a specific category with a real prospect of existence, sufficient importance to justify the costs of review and disclosure, and no real likelihood that the documents would emerge through disclosure on another issue. The general request was refused, without prejudice to a later, more specific application.
4. Early disclosure. Early production of documents supplied to the Levitt inquiry and insurers was refused. The documents would be considered in ordinary Model D disclosure, and no sufficient reason was shown to disrupt the usual timetable. The request concerning insurers also raised potential privilege issues.
5. Custodians and directions. Umar and Samir Kamani were added as custodians because relevant business communications, including WhatsApp messages, were reasonably likely to exist. The assistant company secretary was not added. Full particulars of reliance, including Tables 1 to 3 information, were ordered by 22 May 2026, with related proposals for sample claimants and disclosure preparation.