Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Class Action Claim Facing £8m Legal Costs Bill

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 405
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recent ruling by the High Court in London will mean that unsuccessful claimants in the well-publicised Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group PLC & Anor group action claim will need to make an interim payment of £8m to cover 50% of their opponents legal costs.
In making the ruling, High Court judge Mr Justice Turner said that it was wrong to penalise the defendants for the work done on the case. Justice Turner had already struck out group litigation on behalf of some 202,600 Brazilians last November who were claiming compensation following the collapse of the Fundao dam in Brazil in 2015, saying the task of managing such a case would be ‘irredeemably unmanageable’ if it was allowed to proceed.

The judge also refused permission to appeal and set out his reasons in writing following his ruling. Whilst recognising the complexity and scale of the claims, he pointed out that the draft grounds of appeal were the ‘very antithesis of the conciseness required’, coming to 70 paragraphs over 39 closely-typed pages. The firm representing the claimants, London-based PGMBM, have said there is no question of victims of the disaster incurring any of the costs. In commenting further on the case, Justice Turner said:

Their bloated draft grounds serve only to obfuscate rather than to illuminate what they may perceive to be the merits of their challenge. This, in turn, gives rise to the risk that a judge, whether at first instance or on appeal, may be persuaded to give permission to appeal not through a focussed analysis but having been worn down by a process of relentless documentary attrition.”

The judge rejected 15 separate grounds of appeal (the claimants can still go directly to the Court of Appeal) before moving onto the issue of costs. The defendants’ costs, the judge said, could be seen as extremely high, and he noted that the case had been a ‘forensic arms race’. But the scale of the litigation, the value of any successful claims and the volume of material involved could justify such sums. It was noted too that the claimants had more than 1,000 lawyers and paralegals involved in investigating, considering and pleading the claims, as well as nearly 50 English barristers. An interim £8m was awarded with the rest subject to detailed assessment.In response, claimant law firm PGMBM has said in a statement that it intends to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal:

We are now seeking permission to appeal and are very optimistic. In the event of any adverse costs ruling, these would be covered by the funders and insurers of the case, not victims of the disaster.”

 

 Commercial Litigation Funding

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Following recent Supreme Court rulings in two professional negligence cases, the Court has outlined a “wholly new legal roadmap” for professional negligence claims made in England and Wales. As a result, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (PNLA) have said that existing claims will now need to be reviewed, stating that “for many there could be a substantial impact on the likely chances of success and the assessment of financial loss”.The cases in question are Khan v Meadows [2021] and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021]. The first case centred on whether a medical expert, who failed to diagnose that a mother carried the haemophilia gene, was liable for the costs associated with her son’s autism as well as his haemophilia, whilst the second case concerned whether accountants Grant Thornton were liable for the costs of a building society... Read More

  • A recently failed business claim that was dismissed at court has once again highlighted the many pitfalls and legal complexities facing litigants in person (LIPs – that is, individuals taking legal action without professional representation from a solicitor or barrister). The claim in question - Daly & Anr v Ryan & Anr. 2021 - concerned an individual businessman who had a costly judgment entered against him simply because he had repeatedly failed to abide by the rules. Read More

  • Latest statistics from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), who are responsible for the regulation of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, confirm what many in the profession have been predicting for a while; that law firms are accelerating the consolidation process as they begin to embrace new ways of working. Read More