This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [Insert name of party] a company incorporated in England and Wales (under number [insert registered number]) whose registered office is at [insert registered address] (the Claimant Company); and 2 [Insert name of party] a company incorporated in England and Wales (under number [insert registered number]) whose registered office is at [insert registered address] (the Surrendering Company) (each of the Claimant Company and the Surrendering Company being a Party and together the Claimant Company and the Surrendering Company are the Parties). Recitals: (A) [the [Claimant Company OR Surrendering Company] is the beneficial owner of [the entire OR [Insert percentage]] % of the ordinary share capital of the [Surrendering Company OR Claimant Company] OR [[Insert name of third company]] is the beneficial owner of the [entire OR [Insert percentage]]% of the ordinary share capital of both the Surrendering Company and the Claimant Company]. During the Current Accounting Period the Claimant Company and the Surrendering Company are in the same group of companies for the purposes of surrendering Tax Losses under Part 5 or 5A of CTA 2010.

In accordance with CA 2006, s 399, if a company is a parent company at the end of a financial year, its directors must prepare group accounts for the year as well as preparing individual accounts, unless the company is exempt from that requirement.

Law360: Campaigners can challenge the government's decision to exclude onshore wind from its renewable energy policy, after a judge ruled at a hearing on 20 June 2024 that their claim it breached the UK's climate obligations is arguable.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Morris and others v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm), the Court of Appeal confirmed that multiple claims can be brought in a single claim form as long as it is ‘convenient’. In the recent first-instance decision in Adams v Ministry of Defence, the court confirmed that convenience remains the ‘acid test’. Difficulties with the administration of group claims under the court’s CE-File system will not determine the propriety of using a single group claim form. The court also acknowledged that requiring the re-issue of individual claim forms in an attempt to address any administrative difficulties would ‘frustrate the legitimate expectations’ of claimants, ‘inflict further upheaval’ and, in any event, impose its own administrative burden on the court. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

This Practice Note provides a high level comparison of some of the different procedural mechanisms for claimants bringing civil group claims in England and Wales. The different procedural routes include: adding multiple parties on a single claim form; proceeding with a sample or selection of lead claims; applying for the claims to be managed using a group litigation order (GLO) under CPR 19, or proceeding by way of a representative claim pursuant to CPR 19 where the individuals have the ‘same interest’ in a claim. This Practice Note considers the main differences between adding multiple parties on a single claim form (referred to as a

A civil claim may involve multiple claimants, for example where a defendant’s alleged wrongdoing has caused loss to multiple claimants in the same or a similar way. In some cases, the loss suffered by an individual claimant is insufficient to make the claim financially viable. However, if brought by a group of claimants, it may become viable due to the efficiencies that brings. Where the claims arise out of the same or similar facts or have resulted in the same or similar loss for multiple parties, it may also be sensible for them to be collectively managed by the court. Group claims (also known as class actions or multi-party claims) may be pursued before the English courts via several procedural mechanisms. This Practice Note briefly addresses the requirements for each procedural mechanism, and the guidance given on suitability in case law. It also considers the advantages and disadvantages of each method and provides practical guidance on managing such claims. For guidance in relation

Commercial analysis: The High Court held that only the contracting AFH entity could enforce post-termination restrictive covenants against a self-employed financial adviser who was a ‘worker’, because section 6(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 precluded enforcement by other group companies. Although AFH had a legitimate interest in protecting its recently acquired client bank, its 12-month non-dealing covenant was wider than reasonably necessary once the non-solicitation covenant applied. The decision also clarifies that solicitation requires an active step intended to appropriate custom: merely announcing departure or acting after a client has independently decided to move, is insufficient. Practitioners should therefore scrutinise group contracting arrangements, justify layered restrictions independently and consider garden leave where client relationships are particularly valuable. Produced in partnership with Natalia Faekova of Winston Taylor LLP.

An order made to provide for the case management of claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A recent High Court decision illustrates the complexities that can arise in determining the effect a decision in a test case will have on all the other claims pursued under a group litigation order (GLO). Alan Watts, partner, Greg Rowan, partner and Maura McIntosh, professional support consultant, from Herbert Smith Freehills, examine the decision and its potential implications.

Note: with effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions within CPR 19 were renumbered and amended by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see: Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023—The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023—LNB News 02/02/2023 98 and small amendments were made to CPR PD 19B pursuant to the 153rd practice direction update to the CPR—see: 153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023—LNB News 07/02/2023 72. The provisions relating to group litigation orders (GLOs) are set out in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (renumbered from CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. However, be aware that many of the cases referenced below (decided before 6 April 2023) refer to the old numbering. Where the context of the provision has changed since the case was decided, this is explained. What is a group litigation order? Multiple claims can be managed by the court under a GLO. GLOs may be made, before or after the commencement of proceedings, for the management and trial of a number of claims

Note: with effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions within CPR 19 were renumbered and amended by Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see: LNB News 02/02/2023 98—Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023—The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023. Also small amendments were made to CPR PD 19B pursuant to the 153rd practice direction update to the CPR—see: LNB News 07/02/2023 72—153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. The provisions relating to group litigation orders (GLOs) are set out in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (renumbered from CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. However, be aware that many of the cases referenced below (decided before 6 April 2023) refer to the old numbering. Where the context of the provision has changed since the case was decided, this is explained. Who may apply for a group litigation order and when? It is worth noting that, subject to obtaining the appropriate consent (on which see: Application for a GLO), the court has the power to order a GLO of its own

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court made costs orders following a hearing in group litigation in which the solicitors for the claimants were found to have lacked authority for the vast majority of the 27,830 individuals named on the claim form. The solicitors had also provided funding for the litigation and acted under a DBA. The judge awarded them 90% of the costs of the authority issue. It acceded to an application for the solicitors to show cause why a wasted costs order should not be made, and to an application for disclosure of funding documentation to determine whether the defendants should apply for a non-party costs order. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.