Arif & Ors v Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration Ltd

Arif & Ors v Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration Ltd

The court found that the claims raised sufficient common issues to justify a GLO, given the number of claimants and the potential for further claims. The determination of common issues would significantly advance the litigation. The Bristol court has adequate resources and expertise to manage and try the claims, and there was no compelling reason to transfer the proceedings to London. The proposed requirement for the Defendant to notify its clients was rejected as disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Arif and Others; Defendant: Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/financial Services) / Ruling on Group Litigation Order (glo) Application and Transfer Application
Outcome
GLO application allowed (subject to President's consent); Transfer application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Order (glo), Transfer of Proceedings, Mis Selling of Financial Products, Self Invested Personal Pensions (sipps), Regulatory Breach, Joint Tortfeasor Liability
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Group Litigation Order (glo) Transfer of Proceedings Mis Selling of Financial Products Self Invested Personal Pensions (sipps) Regulatory Breach Joint Tortfeasor Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Arif and Others

Claimant

Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/financial Services) / Ruling on Group Litigation Order (glo) Application and Transfer Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Group Litigation Order (GLO) should be made under CPR 19.10 and 19.11
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be transferred from Bristol to the Royal Courts of Justice (London) under CPR 30.2(4)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the claims raise sufficient common issues to justify a GLO

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claims raised sufficient common issues to justify a GLO, given the number of claimants and the potential for further claims. The determination of common issues would significantly advance the litigation. The Bristol court has adequate resources and expertise to manage and try the claims, and there was no compelling reason to transfer the proceedings to London. The proposed requirement for the Defendant to notify its clients was rejected as disproportionate.

Court Disposition

GLO application allowed (subject to President's consent); Transfer application dismissed.

Orders

  • Court is minded to make a Group Litigation Order and will seek the President's consent.
  • Parties to engage on formulation of GLO issues within 14 days.