Source: https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/benchmarking/the-practitioner%E2%80%99s-guide-to-global-investigations-fourth-edition/1212399/parallel-civil-litigation-the-uk-perspective
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 23:32:07
Document Index: 556851835

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', 'art 3', 'UKPC ', 'art 19', 'arts 19', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 31', 'art 31']

Parallel Civil Litigation: The UK Perspective - GIR - Global Investigations Review
The conduct under review in investigations can generate a range of parallel proceedings. These can precede the investigation, follow on from the investigation findings or, frequently, arise in the course of an investigation. It can be a particular challenge to manage parallel proceedings, which engage their own procedural rules and can force the pace of investigations or create other tensions with the investigative process. This chapter deals with the types of issues and parallel proceedings most likely to arise in complex investigations.
33.2Stay of proceedings
33.2.1Civil litigation
There are many reasons why a court may stay proceedings. For instance, to allow for arbitration, for the dispute to be tried by national courts of another jurisdiction or for other case management purposes (for example, to permit commercial settlement negotiations, or to allow a ruling on a relevant issue to be delivered in a separate case). The court may do so on various legal bases. As well as possessing inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings,[2] the court is empowered under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to stay proceedings in part or in whole, either indefinitely or until a specified date or event.[3] The court may stay proceedings in specific circumstances pursuant to certain other statutes.[4]
In circumstances where there are related criminal proceedings, the following principles (among others) will apply to the exercise of the court’s discretion to stay civil proceedings:[5]
the court will only consider staying the civil proceedings if there is a real risk of serious prejudice which may lead to injustice;[6]
the court will exercise its discretion by reference to the competing considerations between the parties – the court has to balance justice between the parties;[7]
it is not enough that both the civil and criminal proceedings arise from the same facts, or that the defence of the civil proceedings may involve a defendant taking procedural steps (such as exchanging witness statements, and providing disclosure of documents) which might not be imposed on them in the criminal proceedings;[8] and
33.2.2Arbitral proceedings
In England, as in many other jurisdictions, procedural matters in arbitration are governed first and foremost by parties’ agreement. Aspects of applicable arbitral procedure may be set out expressly in an arbitration agreement, be contained in the parties’ chosen institutional arbitration rules (whether such choice is expressed in the arbitration agreement or otherwise) or subsequently be agreed by the parties to a dispute, whether on an ad hoc basis or, for instance, in the tribunal’s agreed terms of appointment. Where parties do not reach agreement, procedural arrangements are otherwise within the discretion of the arbitral tribunal as a matter of English law, subject to the tribunal’s general duties to act fairly and impartially as between the parties and to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case.[9]
An arbitral tribunal may, in exercise of its discretion, elect to stay the arbitral proceedings for a variety of reasons. For instance, at the request of one or both of the parties pending settlement negotiations, upon a party failing to comply with an order to provide security for costs or pending the determination of a preliminary point of law by a court.[10] A tribunal might also stay proceedings to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions where parallel judicial or regulatory proceedings are ongoing, particularly where such proceedings are ongoing in the same jurisdiction as the arbitral seat. In all cases, a tribunal’s decision will depend on the propriety of ordering a stay in all the relevant circumstances, which may, in the regulatory context, depend on the identity of the regulator and the extent to which the outcome of the regulatory investigation is likely to impact the matters at stake in the arbitration itself.
33.3Multi-party litigation
Under English law, class actions do not feature as part of the parallel litigation landscape to the extent that they do in the United States (in particular, securities litigation). Nonetheless, companies may face civil actions brought by multiple parties in a variety of ways and we describe them for completeness. The two main procedural mechanisms for multi-party litigation envisaged by the CPR are representative actions and group litigation orders.[11] Additionally, a form of collective proceeding exists in the competition law context, although this type of action is still very much in its infancy in the United Kingdom.
33.3.1Representative actions
Representative actions allow persons, in certain circumstances, to represent others in legal proceedings (the represented persons are not joined to the action as parties). The CPR provide that such actions may be brought where more than one person has the same interest in a claim.[12] Judgments or orders given in representative actions are normally binding on all persons represented in the claim, but may only be enforced by or against non-parties with the court’s permission.
33.3.2Group litigation orders
33.3.3Joint claims
Multiple parties can also be joined to the same claim. The CPR give the court a range of powers to add or substitute parties to proceedings.[13] Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to a claim, and any number of claims may be covered by one claim form (provided those claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings). However, if a large number of parties are joined, this can lead to practical difficulties.
33.3.4Test cases
In appropriate circumstances, claims subject to a GLO may proceed as test cases.
A pilot scheme was introduced (as part of the implementation of the Financial List), which enables certain claims started in the Financial List to be determined as test cases, without the need for a present cause of action between the parties to the proceedings.[14] The claims must raise issues of general importance in relation to which immediately relevant authoritative English law guidance is needed.
33.3.5Competition law claims
There are specialised collective proceedings for competition law claims.
Two proposed sets of opt-out collective proceedings have been brought before the CAT to date. Initially, both were unsuccessful,[15] with the CAT holding in the Pride case that the proposed class was too broad, and originally in the MasterCard case that the proposed methodology for distributing damages did not reflect the loss suffered by individual members of the class. Nonetheless, arguments in both cases that the representatives were unsuitable failed, and the CAT provided guidance on what it expects from applicants in collective proceedings in future.[16] Recently, the MasterCard case was appealed successfully, and the judgment was reversed.[17] The Court of Appeal held that the CAT’s position on distributing damages was too narrow. Distribution was a matter for the trial judge to consider once an aggregate award had been made. The CAT was not required to assess individual losses, only whether an aggregate award of damages was suitable for the claims.
33.3.6Collective redress schemes
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) may (under section 404 and sections 404A to 404G of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)) make rules requiring certain firms to establish and operate a consumer redress scheme in relation to a widespread or regular failure by such firms to comply with requirements applicable to the carrying on by them of any activity. The relevant requirements include both FCA rules and the general law. The power can be used if it appears to the FCA that, as a result of the failure, consumers have suffered (or may suffer) loss or damage in respect of which a remedy or relief would be available in legal proceedings, and the FCA considers that it is desirable to make rules to secure redress for consumers in respect of the failure. In addition, pursuant to section 404F(7) of FSMA, the FCA may vary the permission or authorisation of a firm to require it to establish and operate a scheme that corresponds to, or is similar to, a consumer redress scheme. The FCA also has administrative powers to require restitution under section 384 of FSMA, which it has previously used to establish a compensatory scheme for investors who suffered loss in connection with an overstatement of expected profits by Tesco plc in 2014.[18]
The FCA has used its power under section 404 of FSMA to introduce rules on consumer redress schemes in the CONRED section of its handbook. In addition to providing general rules on consumer redress schemes, CONRED also sets out in Chapter 2 the rules and key documents of the Arch cru Consumer Redress Scheme.[19] In practice, a great many more redress programmes are conducted by firms under supervision of the FCA or a skilled person appointed by the FCA without use of section 404 of FSMA or CONRED.
33.4Derivative claims and unfair prejudice petitions
33.4.1Derivative claims
Members of a company can bring a derivative claim (pursuant to Part 11, Chapter 1 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)) in respect of a cause of action vested in the company, and seeking relief on its behalf. Such claims may only be brought in respect of a cause of action arising from an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director of the company, and the cause of action may be against the director or another person (or both).
33.4.2Unfair prejudice petitions
The courts take a wide view of prejudice suffered by a shareholder, which need not be financial. The courts also have a very wide discretion in respect of what constitutes unfairness, although they do ‘not sit under a palm tree’.[20] Typically, a member will not be entitled to complain of unfairness unless there has been some breach of the terms on which the member agreed that the company’s affairs should be conducted, although there will be cases in which equitable considerations will make it unfair for those conducting the company’s affairs to rely on their strict legal powers.
33.4.3Practical considerations
Typically derivative claims and unfair prejudice petitions are brought by minority shareholders.[21] There are a number of practical advantages for such shareholders to bringing an unfair prejudice petition instead of a derivative claim. These include the broad grounds for relief, the flexible nature of the relief and the fact that there are fewer procedural hurdles to overcome. There may be significant disadvantages in bringing a derivative claim: the initial procedural phases can be costly, and relief must be sought on behalf of the company. However, in certain circumstances a derivative claim may still be the most appropriate route for shareholders (for example, in the context of public companies, where a finding of unfair prejudice may be less likely).
33.5Securities litigation
As noted above, securities litigation[22] in England and Wales is relatively under-developed in comparison with the position in the United States. However, there are a number of ways in which investors in securities can seek relief before the English courts, and in recent years there has been an increase in the volume of such litigation, due in part to the growing role of third-party litigation funders and specialist claimant law firms.
FSMA sets out the framework for financial services regulation in England and Wales. Section 90 of FSMA imposes liability on issuers and other specified persons (such as the directors of a corporate issuer) where untrue or misleading statements are made in listing particulars or a prospectus relating to certain securities, or where required information is omitted from such documents (or supplementary documents are not published when required), and loss is suffered by investors in respect of those securities as a result. A number of exemptions from such liability are set out in Schedule 10 of FSMA (for instance, where the defendant reasonably believed that the particular statement was true and not misleading, and continued in this belief until the relevant securities were acquired). Section 90A of FSMA applies to broader categories of published information relating to securities, making an issuer liable to pay compensation to investors who suffer loss in respect of those securities as a result of a misleading statement or dishonest omission in that information, or a dishonest delay in publishing information (although liability under section 90A is in some respects more restricted than under section 90 – for instance, the standard of fault under section 90A is higher, and it is necessary to show reliance).[23] In addition, section 138D of FSMA provides a right of action before the courts for private persons who suffer loss as a result of a contravention by an authorised person of certain chapters of the FCA Handbook. Rules made by the Prudential Regulation Authority may also provide that private parties have a similar right of action. Further, a number of other provisions in FSMA (for example, sections 26, 27 and 30) can render agreements or transactions unenforceable, and give rights to recover money (or other property) and to obtain compensation, where the circumstances in which those agreements or transactions were entered into contravene certain rules in FSMA (for instance, if necessary authorisation from the FCA has not been obtained).
Aggrieved investors may also have other options, in addition to reliance on FSMA. Misrepresentation claims pursuant to section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 may be available to investors in circumstances where the investor enters into a contract in reliance on a misrepresentation made to them by another party to the contract, which causes loss, and where the representor did not have a reasonable belief at the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true. Investors may also be able to bring a negligent misstatement claim (in circumstances where a duty of care is owed to the investor, that duty has been breached and that breach causes the investor to suffer recoverable loss), or a claim based on the tort of deceit (which requires, among other things, proof that the defendant knowingly or recklessly made a false representation).[24]
33.6Other private litigation
33.6.1‘Tainted’ contracts
The common law doctrine of illegality may prevent a party to a contract tainted by illegal conduct from enforcing their contractual rights and remedies in certain circumstances. Historically, the law in this area has been complicated and unclear, but it was recently reconsidered by nine Supreme Court justices in the case of Patel v. Mirza.[25] The majority held that the essential rationale underpinning the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would harm the integrity of the legal system. They identified the following three factors which must be taken into account when considering whether to allow a claim which is in some way tainted by illegality:
This approach was, however, criticised by the minority on the basis that it was too vague and too wide, converting a legal principle into the exercise of judicial discretion. It remains to be seen how the doctrine will develop in light of this important case. For instance, in some more recent decisions, the courts have continued to have reference to case law that pre-dates Patel.[26]
Civil law bribery
Civil law bribery[27] arises in the context of agency relationships, where an agent receives a benefit which puts them in a position where their duty (to their principal) and their (personal) interest conflict. The benefit does not necessarily have to be monetary, or provided directly to the agent, and there is no need to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe. The bribe need not be linked to a particular transaction (provided the agent is tainted by bribery at the time of the relevant transaction between the briber and the principal), and it may taint subsequent transactions. An arrangement will not constitute a bribe in the absence of secrecy, although it may still amount to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the agent if the principal’s fully informed consent is not obtained.
33.6.2Specific provisions in commercial contracts
to have in place and comply with specified policies (such as data protection, cybersecurity, anti-slavery and human trafficking or anti-bribery and corruption policies);
to report the occurrence of certain events to contractual counterparties. These could include dealing with a public official in connection with the performance of the contract, receiving a request for a payment (or other advantage) in connection with the performance of the contract, or the commencement (or threat) of an investigation into the activities of the company;
indemnities (for the benefit of contractual counterparties) in respect of loss suffered as a result of a certain breaches of the contract by the company.[28]
33.6.3Mergers, acquisitions and investments
Mergers, acquisitions and investments[29] can present particular risks for companies. Illegal behaviour in the target (or its subsidiaries, or other related companies and persons) may have various negative consequences for an acquiring entity, which can include (1) financial consequences (for example, the target may have been overvalued), (2) legal consequences (both civil and criminal) for the target, the acquiring entity and relevant individuals (including officers of both entities), along with associated legal costs and (3) other practical consequences (for example, reputational damage, which may have a consequent effect on business).[30]
In relation to the latter, warranties, representations and indemnities[31] designed to provide such protection are frequently included in share purchase agreements. The scope of protection will depend on the particular provisions negotiated, but they can be widely drafted, such that they encompass the conduct of, for example:
Accordingly, the existence of an investigation (or related proceedings), or conduct which is the subject of an investigation, may give the acquiring entity contractual rights which it can seek to enforce (including through litigation or arbitration). Again, however, care may need to be taken in doing so, for the reasons given in Section 33.6.2.
33.6.4Defamation proceedings
A company may face defamation actions[32] brought by individuals arising from internal investigations carried out by the company. In particular, issues may arise if it becomes necessary to negotiate an exit from the organisation for individuals involved or implicated in conduct which was the subject of an investigation.
A company may also, in theory, be in a position to bring a defamation action against a whistleblower, given that the act of blowing the whistle will typically involve the publication of a statement that causes harm to reputation. Nonetheless, under the Defamation Act 2013, to satisfy the serious harm threshold, a company must show that the publication caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. Whistleblowers may, however, be able to make out one or more possible defences to such a claim. In particular:
whistleblowers may also benefit from the defence of absolute privilege (as set out above) or qualified privilege, provided that they are not motivated by malice. It is notable, however, that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 does not provide protection from a defamation action for a whistleblower, although if such an action were brought by an employer this is likely to amount to a ‘detriment’ for the purposes of section 47B of Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[33]
33.6.5Arbitration
Allegations of unlawful behaviour can have a significant impact in the context of international arbitration,[34] both before a tribunal itself and before national courts at the stage of recognition or enforcement of an award.
In the context of commercial arbitration, as in the context of civil ligation, allegations of unlawful conduct can impact parties’ disputed rights and obligations under the applicable law in myriad ways. Should a regulatory body, for instance, determine a party’s conduct to be unlawful, this might be taken into account by a tribunal in its consideration of claims of invalidity of a contract on grounds of illegality. In the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, unlawful conduct may impact a court’s assessment of a party’s claims to resist recognition or enforcement on the grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention, for instance, on public policy grounds.[35]
A party’s unlawful conduct can also have a significant impact in the context of determination of investor–state disputes arising under international treaties. In particular, numerous international tribunals have been faced with assessing allegations of investor misconduct, often involving corruption or bribery, in a variety of contexts. The findings of a domestic regulatory body, while compelling evidence of unlawful conduct under the law of the regulator’s jurisdiction, are only one factor to be taken into account by an international tribunal. The consequences of unlawful conduct under a domestic law being proven to the satisfaction of an international tribunal will vary, and often depend to a large extent on the provisions of the treaty or other instrument under which the claim has been brought. In general terms, however, there is an emerging consensus in international practice that investment claims tainted by corruption or other unlawful conduct will be dismissed on grounds of inadmissibility (or, according to some tribunals, for lack of jurisdiction). Where investment treaty awards are governed by the New York Convention, the same considerations apply with respect to enforcement and recognition as for commercial awards.
33.6.6Employment law and whistleblowing
In addition, to the extent that allegations have been made by whistleblowers, companies under investigation or conducting investigations should be careful to respect whistleblower rights to avoid claims for breach of the protections afforded to whistleblowers. For a disclosure by an employee to be protected, it must be made where the employee has a reasonable belief that the information tends to show breach of a legal obligation, in the public interest and to a prescribed person.
33.6.7Data breaches
The General Data Protection Regulation[36] (GDPR) has applied in the United Kingdom since 25 May 2018, and makes provision for the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, and the free movement of such data. In addition to the penalties that may be imposed by supervisory authorities pursuant to the GDPR,[37] which can include an administrative fine of up to €20 million or up to 4 per cent of an undertaking’s total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher) in respect of certain infringements, companies that are data controllers or processors may also face actions brought by data subjects in respect of infringements of their rights under the GDPR (data subjects may mandate representative organisations to bring actions on their behalf), as well as actions for compensation brought by any persons who have suffered damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR.[38]
Relatedly, the GDPR also requires notification of certain personal data breaches to the competent supervisory authority without undue delay, and in certain circumstances communication to the data subject is also necessary.[39] Even in cases not involving personal data, companies may face significant regulatory consequences following cyberattacks – in 2018, the FCA imposed a fine of £16.4 million on Tesco Bank following a cyberattack in November 2016, which did not involve the loss or theft of personal data.[40]
Companies may also be responsible for data breaches by rogue employees. It was recently held, in the context of a group action brought by more than 5,500 employees of a supermarket company whose personal information was disclosed by the actions of a disgruntled IT auditor employed by the company, that the company was vicariously liable for the actions of that IT auditor, even though the company itself had not breached applicable data protection rules.[41]
33.7Evidentiary issues
33.7.1Reliance by the court on findings made by the authorities
Parties may seek to rely on findings made by the authorities in an investigation (such as a final notice from the FCA) in subsequent civil litigation. Objections may be raised to such reliance on the grounds of admissibility – as a matter of evidence, bare findings made in earlier proceedings are ordinarily inadmissible and excluded under what is known as the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn,[42] although this controversial rule is subject to exceptions, and it has been held that a court can take into account the substance of underlying evidence as set out in prior decisions (giving it such weight as is appropriate).[43] In addition, a court may allow documents containing other relevant evidence, in addition to inadmissible findings, to be put before the court, with the judge taking into account that which is admissible and ignoring that which is inadmissible.[44]
Some investigations may result in criminal prosecutions and, potentially, convictions. In any subsequent civil proceedings, the fact of a UK conviction will be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where relevant, that the convicted person committed the offence, and the information, complaint, indictment or charge sheet on which the person in question was convicted are admissible for the purpose of identifying the facts on which the conviction is based.[45] Where criminal proceedings follow civil proceedings, ordinarily findings of a civil court on the matters in issue in the criminal case will not be admissible in those subsequent criminal proceedings, although in some circumstances civil judgments may be admissible pursuant to the rules concerning evidence of bad character.
In addition, if a company enters into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with a prosecutor, this must contain a statement of facts relating to the alleged offence and the company will be required to admit the contents and meaning of key documents referred to in the statement of facts.[46] Parties which bring civil litigation against the company may seek to rely on the contents of a DPA statement of facts as having the status of admissions by the company and may also seek disclosure of any underlying documents.
Certain specific rules apply in the competition law context. Pursuant to EU law, national courts may not make determinations which conflict with European Commission decisions (or rulings of both the General Court and the European Court of Justice) on certain EU competition law issues. Where no risk of direct conflict arises, but a decision of the European Commission addresses similar subject matter to that before the national court, the European Commission decision may simply be admissible as evidence before the national court (although, given the expertise of the European Commission, it might well be regarded by that court as highly persuasive). The Damages Directive, which was implemented in the United Kingdom in March 2017, provides that final decisions of national competition authorities (or review courts) in other Member States may be presented before national courts as at least prima facie evidence that an infringement of competition law has occurred. In addition, the Competition Act 1998 (as amended) provides that findings of fact made by the CMA during the course of an investigation (which have not been appealed, or which have been confirmed on appeal) which are relevant to an issue arising in certain competition law proceedings before the High Court (or the CAT) are binding on the parties to those proceedings, unless the court (or the CAT) orders otherwise. Further, where a claim is brought before the High Court (or the CAT) in respect of an infringement decision (from the CMA, the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European Commission), the court (or the CAT) is bound by that infringement decision once it has become final.
33.7.2Reliance by an authority on court findings
Matters which come to light during the course of civil litigation can have repercussions beyond the immediate context of those proceedings. They may draw the attention of the authorities, and there have been cases where authorities have relied on the findings of civil courts as grounds for taking action. For example, the FCA has previously prohibited individuals from carrying on regulated activities on the basis of findings in High Court judgments (in one instance, without conducting a separate investigation).[47] Accordingly, these risks may be relevant considerations for a company when considering and implementing its litigation strategy in civil proceedings. In addition, conflict and privilege issues may arise if the interests of the company and its employees are not aligned.
33.7.3Collateral use of disclosed documents
English law can impose onerous disclosure obligations on parties to civil proceedings – typically, parties are required to disclose documents on which they rely, and documents which adversely affect their case, adversely affect another party’s case or which support another party’s case (although the court may make an alternative order in relation to disclosure, and a pilot scheme involving generally less expansive disclosure obligations to apply in the Business and Property Courts in England and Wales for two years was rolled out in January 2019[48]). In certain circumstances, parties may protect documents from inspection, for instance, on the grounds of privilege or the public interest. However, the confidentiality of a relevant document is not, of itself, a justification for refusing to disclose it, although it may be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to order disclosure. Although certain recent decisions of the English courts regarding the law of privilege had pointed towards a more restrictive interpretation of the scope of the protection which it offers,[49] the important judgment of the Court of Appeal in the ENRC case (concerning, in particular, the scope of litigation privilege in the context of a corruption investigation) suggests that this trend is beginning to change.[50]
the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.[51]
33.8Practical considerations
33.8.1Coordination with internal investigations team
33.8.2Privilege waivers and disclosure obligations
33.9Concurrent settlements
33.10Concluding remarks
1 Nichola Peters and Michelle de Kluyver are partners at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. Michelle de Kluyver co-authored this chapter for the first edition with Edward McCullagh and would like to thank him for his contribution as co-author and then as author of later editions, as well as Jonathan Hitchin of Allen & Overy LLP for his support on all earlier editions.
2 See, e.g., China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation v. Emerald Energy Resources Limited [2018] EWHC 1503 (Comm), [61].
3 CPR, Part 3.1(2)(f).
4 For example, section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
5 See Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras (in bankruptcy) v. Antonov [2013] EWHC 131 (Comm), [18].
6 R v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Fayed [1992] BCC 524, 531.
7 Panton and others v. Financial Institutions Services Ltd [2003] UKPC 95, [11].
8 FSA v. Anderson [2010] EWHC 308 (Ch), [19].
9 Arbitration Act 1996, sections 33-34.
10 Arbitration Act 1996, section 45.
11 See further Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, Adrian Zuckerman, 3rd edn. (2013); Improving Access to Justice through Collective Actions, Civil Justice Council (2008).
12 Representative actions may also be brought in more limited circumstances pursuant to CPR, Part 19.7.
13 CPR, Parts 19.1 and 7.3.
14 CPR, Practice Direction 51M.
15 Dorothy Gibson v. Pride Mobility Products Ltd [2017] CAT 9 and Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. MasterCard Incorporated and Others [2017] CAT 16.
16 Collective proceedings in relation to the European Commission’s 19 July 2016 decision (Case AT.39824 – Trucks), concerning a cartel in the truck manufacturing industry have commenced. UK Trucks Claim Limited v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and Others is listed for December 2019 following the pre-hearing review in May 2019.
17 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. MasterCard Incorporated and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 674.
18 FCA Final Notice to Tesco plc and Tesco Stores Limited dated 28 March 2017.
19 FCA, Consumer Redress Schemes sourcebook, Chapter 2.
20 In re J. E. Cade & Son Ltd. [1992] B.C.L.C. 213, 227.
21 See further Minority Shareholders: Law, Practice and Procedure, Victor Joffe QC, David Drake, Giles Richardson, Daniel Lightman and Timothy Collingwood, 6th ed. (2018).
22 See further The Securities Litigation Review, ed. William Savitt, 5th edn. (2019).
23 The high-profile RBS Rights Issue litigation involved claims under section 90 of FSMA; and, in more recent litigation arising out of an overstatement of expected profits by Tesco plc in 2014, claims have been made under section 90A of FSMA. (See also Section 33.3.6.)
24 In addition to private enforcement, public enforcement proceedings may also be brought against companies (typically by the FCA) for breach of securities rules.
25 [2016] UKSC 42.
26 See, for example, Henderson v. Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1841 (appeal outstanding).
27 See further Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, ed. Peter Watts QC, 21st edn. (2017).
28 An indemnity against a criminal liability may, however, be unenforceable for public policy reasons.
29 See further Anti-Bribery Due Diligence for Transactions: Guidance for Anti-Bribery Due Diligence in Mergers, Acquisitions and Investments, Transparency International UK (2012).
30 Companies should also be aware of the risk that illegal behaviour (for example, bribery) may occur during the merger, acquisition or investment transaction.
31 However, see footnote 28, above, in relation to indemnities against criminal liability.
32 See further Gatley on Libel and Slander, eds. Alastair Mullis and Richard Parkes QC, 12th edn. (2013).
33 See further Whistleblowing: Law and Practice, John Bowers QC, Martin Fodder, Jeremy Lewis and Jack Mitchell, 3rd edn. (2017).
34 See further International Commercial Arbitration, Gary Born, 2nd edn. (2014).
35 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, Article V(2)(b); Arbitration Act 1996, section 103(3)
36 Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
37 In the United Kingdom, the relevant authority is the Information Commissioner’s Office.
38 See GDPR, Articles 79, 80, 82 and 83. The courts recently did not permit a broad representative action against Google to proceed, in which the representative claimant sought compensation which was estimated as being in the range from £1 billion to 3 billion (Lloyd v. Google LLC [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB)). It was argued that Google had acted in breach of a duty imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (allegedly by secretly tracking the internet activity of Apple iPhone users, and using and selling the accumulated data), but the court found (among other things) that, on the facts alleged, relevant damage had not been suffered, and that class members did not have the same interest. The appeal by the class members is outstanding.
39 GDPR, Articles 33 and 34.
40 FCA Final Notice to Tesco Personal Finance plc dated 1 October 2018.
41 Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc v. Various Claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 2339. Application for permission to directly appeal to the Supreme Court was granted and the appeal is outstanding.
42 Hollington v. F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587.
43 See e.g. JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov & Anor [2018] EWHC 1368 (Comm), [19].
44 Rogers v. Hoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257, [53]–[55].
45 Civil Evidence Act 1968, section 11.
46 Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17, paragraph 5(1); Deferred Prosecution Agreements Code of Practice, para. 6.1.
47 FCA Final Notice to Mr Anthony Verrier, dated 27 January 2014; FCA Final Notice to Mr Stephen Robert Allen, dated 14 April 2015; Stephen Robert Allen v. The Financial Conduct Authority [2014] UKUT 0348 (TCC).
48 See Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts Press Announcement, dated 31 December 2018, accessible on https://www.judiciary.co.uk and CPR Practice Direction 51U.
49 See, for example, The RBS Rights Issue Litigation [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch), and the first-instance decision in The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017.
50 The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006; see also Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2017] EWHC 3535 (Ch) (concerning litigation privilege) and Property Alliance Group Limited v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 3187 (Ch) (in the legal advice privilege context).
51 See Tchenguiz v. Grant Thornton [2017] EWHC 310 (Comm) for the broad interpretation of collateral ‘use’ in relation to CPR Part 31.22, which includes, for example, reviewing documents for relevance; and see also The ECU Group Plc v. HSBC Bank Plc & Ors [2018] EWHC 3045, in which the judge emphasised the importance of the rule in CPR Part 31.22.