Smyth v British Airways Plc & Anor [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB) (02 September 2024)

Smyth v British Airways Plc & Anor [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB) (02 September 2024)

The claim does not meet the jurisdictional requirements for a representative action under CPR 19.8 because the claimant and the represented parties do not share the same interest; the class is not properly constituted at the outset and cannot be remedied by successive amendments. As a matter of discretion, the claim should not proceed as a representative action due to the dominant financial motive of the funder, lack of transparency, and the availability of alternative remedies at no cost to claimants.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2173 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Claire Smyth; First Defendant: British Airways PLC; Second Defendant: EasyJet Airline Company Limited; Interested Party (for the Purposes of Costs Only): John Armour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Representative Action (cpr 19.8) / Strike Out Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Claim struck out as a representative action under CPR 19.8; claimant may not act as a representative.
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Collective Redress, CPR 19.8, Flight Compensation, Litigation Funding, Class Definition, Jurisdictional Requirements
Civil Procedure Consumer Law Aviation Law Representative Actions Collective Redress CPR 19.8 Flight Compensation Litigation Funding +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Smyth

Claimant

British Airways PLC

First Defendant

EasyJet Airline Company Limited

Second Defendant

John Armour

Interested Party (for the Purposes of Costs Only)

Procedural Posture

Civil Representative Action (cpr 19.8) / Strike Out Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim meets the 'same interest' requirement under CPR 19.8 for a representative action
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be permitted to proceed as a representative action as a matter of discretion
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a suitable representative

Ratio Decidendi

The claim does not meet the jurisdictional requirements for a representative action under CPR 19.8 because the claimant and the represented parties do not share the same interest; the class is not properly constituted at the outset and cannot be remedied by successive amendments. As a matter of discretion, the claim should not proceed as a representative action due to the dominant financial motive of the funder, lack of transparency, and the availability of alternative remedies at no cost to claimants.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as a representative action under CPR 19.8; claimant may not act as a representative.

Orders

  • The claim is struck out as a representative action under CPR 19.8.
  • The claimant may not act as a representative.