18/1/24
COMMISSION RECOVERY LTD v MARKS & CLERK LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 9
The court dismissed an application under CPR r.19.8(2) for an order preventing the claimant from acting as a representative for others with the same interest in a claim to recover commissions alleged to have been received in breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant from third parties to whom the defendant referred clients. Considers principles to be applied in permitting representative claims [29] including those seeking monetary relief which require individual assessment where only some issues can be dealt with on a representative basis (the so-called bifurcated approach). The question whether the existence, scope and breach of fiduciary duty was established by the existence of a contract on the defendant’s standard terms and receipt of commission, or turned on other facts, was common to all cases. The need for individual assessment of some issues such as limitation, did not make a representative claim on other issues inappropriate even if it would not fully resolve the question of liability. Nor was it necessary for the claimant to plead an individual claim for each member of the class for the common issues to be determined.
10/11/21
LLOYD v GOOGLE LLC [2021] UKSC 50
A claimant cannot recover damages under Data Protection Act 1998, s.13 for loss of control of their data without proving pecuniary loss or distress. In s.13 damage means financial loss or physical or psychological injury and distress. The court also gave guidance on the conduct of representative actions under CPR r.19.6.