Greenwood & Ors v Goodwin & Ors [2014] EWHC 227 (Ch) (12 February 2014)

Greenwood & Ors v Goodwin & Ors [2014] EWHC 227 (Ch) (12 February 2014)

Adverse and common costs in this GLO are to be allocated among all claimants on a several and pro-rata basis according to the acquisition cost of shares, not by group or equal share per group. All claimants, whether active or passive, present or future, are subject to the same costs regime. The GLO cut-off date is set aside. Defendants are required to plead to causation and quantum. Cost budgeting is premature but parties must exchange actual costs incurred and estimates. Orders may only be varied on material and substantial change of circumstances or compelling reason.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 227 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr John Greenwood and others; Defendant: Mr Frederick Goodwin; Defendant: Sir Thomas McKillop; Defendant: John Cameron; Defendant: Guy Whittaker; Defendant: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC; Claimant: Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Limited and others; Interested Party: LK Group (represented by Leon Kaye Solicitors); Interested Party: QE Group (represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (glo) – Securities/shareholder Action / Post Third Case Management Conference (cmc); Interlocutory Judgment on Costs Sharing, Case Management, and Procedural Directions
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment with directions; no final determination of substantive claims.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Orders, Costs Allocation, Case Management, Securities Misrepresentation, Adverse Costs, Cost Budgeting, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Financial Services Law Securities Litigation Group Litigation Orders Costs Allocation Case Management Securities Misrepresentation Adverse Costs +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr John Greenwood and others

Claimant

Mr Frederick Goodwin

Defendant

Sir Thomas McKillop

Defendant

John Cameron

Defendant

Guy Whittaker

Defendant

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC

Defendant

Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Limited and others

Claimant

LK Group (represented by Leon Kaye Solicitors)

Interested Party

QE Group (represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) – Securities/shareholder Action / Post Third Case Management Conference (cmc); Interlocutory Judgment on Costs Sharing, Case Management, and Procedural Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should adverse and common costs be allocated among claimants in a GLO with widely varying claim values?
  2. 2 Should claimants who have not yet issued proceedings or are not active participants be liable for costs?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate basis for pro-rating costs among claimants?

Ratio Decidendi

Adverse and common costs in this GLO are to be allocated among all claimants on a several and pro-rata basis according to the acquisition cost of shares, not by group or equal share per group. All claimants, whether active or passive, present or future, are subject to the same costs regime. The GLO cut-off date is set aside. Defendants are required to plead to causation and quantum. Cost budgeting is premature but parties must exchange actual costs incurred and estimates. Orders may only be varied on material and substantial change of circumstances or compelling reason.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory judgment with directions; no final determination of substantive claims.

Orders

  • Adverse and common costs to be allocated pro-rata to acquisition cost among all claimants, several liability.
  • GLO cut-off date set aside.