Claire Smyth v British Airways PLC & Anor

Claire Smyth v British Airways PLC & Anor

The proposed representative action does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of CPR 19.8 because the claimant and represented parties do not share the same interest; the class is not properly constituted at the outset and cannot be cured by successive amendments. As a matter of discretion, the dominant motive is financial gain for the funder and legal team, not consumer redress, and the deduction from compensation is excessive and disproportionate given the availability of free, effective remedies. The action is struck out and the claimant barred from acting as representative.

Parties
Claimant: Claire Smyth; First Defendant: British Airways PLC; Second Defendant: EasyJet Airline Company Limited; Interested Party (for Costs Only): John Armour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Representative Action / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Representative Action And/or Bar Claimant From Acting as Representative
Outcome
Claim struck out; claimant barred from acting as representative.
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Class Actions, Litigation Funding, EU Regulation 261/2004, Jurisdiction and Discretion Under CPR 19.8
Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Aviation Law Representative Actions Class Actions Litigation Funding EU Regulation 261/2004 Jurisdiction and Discretion Under CPR 19.8

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Smyth

Claimant

British Airways PLC

First Defendant

EasyJet Airline Company Limited

Second Defendant

John Armour

Interested Party (for Costs Only)

Procedural Posture

Civil Representative Action / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Representative Action And/or Bar Claimant From Acting as Representative

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for a representative action under CPR 19.8 are met
  2. 2 Whether the claimant and represented parties have the 'same interest'
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the claim to proceed as a representative action

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed representative action does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of CPR 19.8 because the claimant and represented parties do not share the same interest; the class is not properly constituted at the outset and cannot be cured by successive amendments. As a matter of discretion, the dominant motive is financial gain for the funder and legal team, not consumer redress, and the deduction from compensation is excessive and disproportionate given the availability of free, effective remedies. The action is struck out and the claimant barred from acting as representative.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; claimant barred from acting as representative.

Orders

  • The action is struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) & (c).
  • Under CPR rule 19.8(2), the claimant may not act as a representative.