Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions

Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions

The court declined to make a Group Litigation Order because the advantages of a GLO can be achieved through conventional case management, there is insufficient evidence that a group register is required or desirable, and uncertainties regarding the RGL Claimants and possible future claims make a GLO premature. Directions for service of pleadings and further case management were instead ordered.

Parties
Claimant: Edward Moon and Ors; Claimant: Anthony Etkind and Ors; Defendant: Link Fund Solutions; RGL Claimants/interested Parties: Sarah Louisa Spice and Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Group Litigation Application / Application for Group Litigation Order (glo) Ruling on Application
Outcome
Application for Group Litigation Order refused; directions for service of pleadings and case management given.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Order (glo), Collective Investment Schemes, Breach of Statutory Duty, Case Management, Damages for Mismanagement of Investment Fund
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Group Litigation Order (glo) Collective Investment Schemes Breach of Statutory Duty Case Management Damages for Mismanagement of Investment Fund

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Moon and Ors

Claimant

Anthony Etkind and Ors

Claimant

Link Fund Solutions

Defendant

Sarah Louisa Spice and Ors

RGL Claimants/interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Group Litigation Application / Application for Group Litigation Order (glo) Ruling on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Group Litigation Order (GLO) should be made for claims against Link Fund Solutions arising from the management of the LF Equity Income Fund
  2. 2 Whether the claims give rise to common or related issues of fact or law suitable for a GLO
  3. 3 Whether a GLO is the most appropriate and efficient case management tool in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to make a Group Litigation Order because the advantages of a GLO can be achieved through conventional case management, there is insufficient evidence that a group register is required or desirable, and uncertainties regarding the RGL Claimants and possible future claims make a GLO premature. Directions for service of pleadings and further case management were instead ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for Group Litigation Order refused; directions for service of pleadings and case management given.

Orders

  • Claim forms already issued to be served within 21 days.
  • PLS Claimants to serve generic particulars of claim within 42 days.