Trustees of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund & Ors v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology [2025] EWHC 3262 (Ch) (11 December 2025)

Trustees of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund & Ors v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology [2025] EWHC 3262 (Ch) (11 December 2025)

The court held that the representative claims by C9-C12 under CPR 19.8 are not viable if the claimants' causation arguments fail, as the proposed methods (including statistical sampling and aggregate assessment) would result in damages being awarded to individuals who may have suffered no loss, contrary to the principles established in Lloyd v Google. The court found that only if the claimants succeed on their causation arguments—so that damages can be assessed by reference to PPL data alone without individualised assessment—would the CPR 19.8 procedure be workable. The fallback proposals, including post-liability joinder of claimants, do not provide sufficient assurance that a critical...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3262 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Trustees of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund & Others; Defendant/applicant: Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology; Intervener: Phonographic Performance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property / Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc); Interlocutory Judgment on Representative Action and Intervention Application
Outcome
Representative claims under CPR 19.8 may proceed only if claimants succeed on causation arguments; otherwise, claims must be brought individually. PPL permitted to intervene by written submissions. Disclosure and reserved costs issues addressed as per oral reasons; costs budgeting to be determined separately.
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Francovich Damages, Equitable Remuneration, Collective Redress, Case Management, Disclosure, Intervention, Sampling and Statistical Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure EU Law Representative Actions Francovich Damages Equitable Remuneration Collective Redress Case Management +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trustees of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund & Others

Claimants/respondents

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

Defendant/applicant

Phonographic Performance Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property / Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc); Interlocutory Judgment on Representative Action and Intervention Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims by C9-C12 can proceed as representative claims under CPR 19.8 for Francovich damages on behalf of US performers
  2. 2 Whether the proposed mechanisms for assessing damages are compatible with CPR 19.8 and the principles in Lloyd v Google
  3. 3 Whether to permit PPL to intervene by written submissions

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the representative claims by C9-C12 under CPR 19.8 are not viable if the claimants' causation arguments fail, as the proposed methods (including statistical sampling and aggregate assessment) would result in damages being awarded to individuals who may have suffered no loss, contrary to the principles established in Lloyd v Google. The court found that only if the claimants succeed on their causation arguments—so that damages can be assessed by reference to PPL data alone without individualised assessment—would the CPR 19.8 procedure be workable. The fallback proposals, including post-liability joinder of claimants, do not provide sufficient assurance that a critical...

Court Disposition

Representative claims under CPR 19.8 may proceed only if claimants succeed on causation arguments; otherwise, claims must be brought individually. PPL permitted to intervene by written submissions. Disclosure and reserved costs issues addressed as per oral reasons; costs budgeting to be determined separately.

Orders

  • Representative claims by C9-C12 under CPR 19.8 may proceed to liability trial, but quantum stage requires individual claimants if causation arguments fail.
  • PPL granted permission to intervene by written submissions on the Atresmedia issue.