David Hamon and Ors v University College London

David Hamon and Ors v University College London

The court ordered a stay of proceedings for 8 months to encourage the parties to engage in ADR, including but not limited to the OIA scheme, due to the high costs and complexity of group litigation, the existence of a statutory ADR scheme, and the need for proportionate resolution. The GLO application was adjourned...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: David Hamon and others; Defendant: University College London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Group Litigation (application for GLO and Stay) / Interlocutory Application (hearing of GLO and Stay Applications)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted for 8 months; GLO application adjourned.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Order (glo), Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Student Contracts, COVID 19 Impact on Education, Industrial Action, Jurisdiction and Stay of Proceedings
Contract Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Group Litigation Order (glo) Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Student Contracts COVID 19 Impact on Education Industrial Action +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hamon and others

Claimant

University College London

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Group Litigation (application for GLO and Stay) / Interlocutory Application (hearing of GLO and Stay Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed to allow ADR via the OIA scheme before litigation proceeds
  2. 2 Whether a Group Litigation Order (GLO) should be granted for the claims against UCL
  3. 3 Whether the OIA scheme is an appropriate and effective ADR mechanism for these claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered a stay of proceedings for 8 months to encourage the parties to engage in ADR, including but not limited to the OIA scheme, due to the high costs and complexity of group litigation, the existence of a statutory ADR scheme, and the need for proportionate resolution. The GLO application was adjourned pending the outcome of ADR. The court did not compel ADR but made clear that costs sanctions may follow if parties fail to engage constructively. The court found that while the OIA scheme may not resolve all legal issues, it could resolve or narrow a significant number of claims, and that litigation should be a last resort.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted for 8 months; GLO application adjourned.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed for 8 months from judgment to allow ADR, with permission to apply after 4 months if ADR is not proving successful or cannot be attempted.
  • GLO application adjourned pending outcome of ADR.