Various Claimants v Serco Group PLC

Various Claimants v Serco Group PLC

The court held that the developments since the first CMC did not justify abandoning the sampling approach in favour of including all indirect reliance claimants in trial two. The existing sample group, as proposed by the claimants, was sufficiently representative and proportionate to the issues, and expanding the sample would add unnecessary complexity and cost without material benefit.

Parties
Claimant: Various Claimants; Defendant: Serco Group Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Securities Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) Approval of Sample Claimants for Split Trial
Outcome
Application by defendant to expand sample group refused; claimants' proposed sample group approved.
Legal Topics
Section 90 a FSMA 2000, Sampling in Group Litigation, Reliance (direct, Market, Price), Limitation Act 1980, Disclosure, Quantum
Securities Law Civil Procedure Section 90 a FSMA 2000 Sampling in Group Litigation Reliance (direct, Market, Price) Limitation Act 1980 Disclosure Quantum

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Claimants

Claimant

Serco Group Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Securities Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) Approval of Sample Claimants for Split Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether all indirect reliance claimants should be included in trial two or a sampling approach should be maintained
  2. 2 Whether additional claimants with specific reliance characteristics should be added to the sample group

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the developments since the first CMC did not justify abandoning the sampling approach in favour of including all indirect reliance claimants in trial two. The existing sample group, as proposed by the claimants, was sufficiently representative and proportionate to the issues, and expanding the sample would add unnecessary complexity and cost without material benefit.

Court Disposition

Application by defendant to expand sample group refused; claimants' proposed sample group approved.

Orders

  • Sample group for trial two approved as MC2, MC3, MC4, MC9, MC12, MC13, and MC22-23, including all listed funds/accounts.
  • No addition of further claimants to the sample group.