Wirral Council as administering authority of Merseyside Pension Fund v Indivior PLC

Wirral Council as administering authority of Merseyside Pension Fund v Indivior PLC

The court exercised its discretion to strike out the representative proceedings because their structure would deprive the court of its ability to case manage the claims from start to finish, contrary to the overriding objective. The existence of feasible multi-party proceedings, the lack of evidence that retail investors could not otherwise access justice, and the engineered exclusion of retail investors from multi-party proceedings by funders all weighed against allowing the representative proceedings to continue.

Parties
Representative Claimant: Wirral Council as administering authority of Merseyside Pension Fund; Defendant: Indivior PLC; Defendant: Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Securities/representative Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Representative Proceedings
Outcome
Representative proceedings struck out; application allowed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Case Management, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (fsma), Bifurcation of Issues, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Securities Law Representative Proceedings Case Management Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (fsma) Bifurcation of Issues Access to Justice

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wirral Council as administering authority of Merseyside Pension Fund

Representative Claimant

Indivior PLC

Defendant

Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Securities/representative Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Representative Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representative proceedings under CPR 19.8 are appropriate for securities claims under ss.90, 90A and Schedule 10A FSMA
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow representative proceedings to continue or strike them out in favour of multi-party proceedings
  3. 3 Whether bifurcation of issues deprives the court of case management powers

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to strike out the representative proceedings because their structure would deprive the court of its ability to case manage the claims from start to finish, contrary to the overriding objective. The existence of feasible multi-party proceedings, the lack of evidence that retail investors could not otherwise access justice, and the engineered exclusion of retail investors from multi-party proceedings by funders all weighed against allowing the representative proceedings to continue.

Court Disposition

Representative proceedings struck out; application allowed

Orders

  • Wirral may not act as a representative pursuant to CPR 19.8(2)
  • The Claim Forms and Particulars of Claim in the Representative Proceedings are struck out