When many people are affected by the same product, service, or event, the courts of England and Wales have a way of handling their claims together rather than one at a time. The umbrella term is group litigation, and its most formal tool is the group litigation order (GLO). A GLO does not create one giant new claim or turn a loose group of people into a class. It is a case-management device: the court identifies the questions the claims share, decides those questions once, and applies the answer across every claim on the group register.
The appeal is practical as much as legal. Where an individual loss is modest, the cost of a standalone claim can be disproportionate to what is at stake. Grouping related claims may make the difference between a dispute being economically viable and not being brought at all. It also reduces the risk of different courts reaching inconsistent conclusions on the same facts.
What a group litigation order actually does
A GLO is defined in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) at rule 19.21 and made under rule 19.22. Under that rule, every GLO must do three core things:
- establish a group register, listing the claims managed under the order;
- identify the GLO issues – the common or related questions of fact or law that define the group; and
- name the management court that will handle the claims.
The order must also be made with the consent of a senior judge: the President of the King’s Bench Division, the Chancellor of the High Court, or the Head of Civil Justice, depending on the court involved. A GLO is discretionary, not automatic. The court weighs whether grouping the claims serves the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
It is worth being precise about what a GLO is not. In a GLO, each claimant generally remains a party with a separate claim. What is shared is the determination of the common issues. Individual questions – the specific loss a claimant suffered, or a limitation defence unique to them – may still need to be resolved separately, often at a later stage. This differs from the caricature of a single US-style class action. One practitioner guide counted more than 120 GLOs made since the regime began in 2000, which gives a sense of how selectively the procedure has been used.
The main routes to collective redress
Group litigation in the UK is not one procedure but several, and choosing between them shapes almost everything that follows. The table below compares the four most common mechanisms.
| Mechanism | Where it applies | How members take part | Effect on the group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group litigation order (GLO) | England and Wales, High Court or County Court | Claimants issue their own claims and opt in to a group register | A judgment on the GLO issues generally binds all claims on the register |
| Representative action (CPR 19.8) | England and Wales | One or more representatives act for a class with the “same interest”; represented people need not be named | The judgment binds represented class members, but is not directly enforceable by or against them without the court’s permission |
| Collective proceedings (Competition Appeal Tribunal) | UK-wide, competition law claims only | A certified class representative acts for a class, on an opt-in or opt-out basis | Aggregate damages may be awarded; class members are bound unless they opt out (or, if non-UK domiciled, do not opt in) |
| Joinder or consolidation | England and Wales | Multiple claimants are joined to one claim or their claims are heard together | Each claim stays legally separate, but is case-managed alongside the others |
Sources: CPR Part 19, Practice Direction 19B, and the Competition Act 1998, section 47B; comparison drawn from published practitioner guidance (Ashurst, 2024; Mishcon de Reya, 2024).
For mass torts outside competition law – personal injury, consumer disputes, financial claims – the GLO tends to be the default route. A representative action is narrower in practice, because the claimants must share the same interest, and claims requiring individual assessment of damages may not fit that test. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) regime is powerful but confined to competition claims, which is why some claims that are really about consumer or data protection law have been argued as competition matters.
Applying for a group litigation order
An application can be made by a claimant, by a defendant, or by the court on its own initiative, and it may be made before or after the relevant claims are issued. The process is set out in Practice Direction 19B.
Before applying, the solicitor acting for the proposed applicant is expected to consult the Law Society’s Multi Party Action Information Service to find out whether other cases raising the same issues exist. It is often convenient for claimant firms to form a solicitors’ group and appoint one of their number to take the lead in applying for the GLO and running the common issues. That lead role, and its relationship with the other firms, should be defined carefully in writing.
The application is made under Part 23 of the CPR and supported by evidence demonstrating that there are, or are likely to be, a number of claims giving rise to the GLO issues. The court may consider whether a different mechanism would be more appropriate, and it has declined GLOs where the circumstances point elsewhere. In one 2025 decision, the court concluded a GLO was inappropriate where a statutory compensation scheme had already been established. Earlier case law has made clear that the number of claimants must be substantially more than two, although the rules set no fixed minimum.
Joining the group: the register and the cut-off date
Once a GLO is made, a group register is established, usually maintained by the lead claimant solicitors. A claim must be issued before it can be entered on the register, and it must give rise to at least one of the GLO issues. This is an opt-in model: people who want to be part of the group generally need their own claim issued and registered.
The management court can set a cut-off date after which no new claim may be added without permission. Practice Direction 19B notes that an early cut-off may suit “instant disaster” cases such as transport accidents, where the affected group is identifiable quickly. For consumer claims, and particularly pharmaceutical claims, the court may delay the cut-off because the pool of affected people can take much longer to emerge.
A party can also apply to have a claim removed from the register, and the court may refuse entry – or order removal – where a claim cannot be conveniently managed alongside the others, even if it raises a GLO issue.
Who runs the claim
A managing judge is appointed as soon as possible after the GLO is made and assumes overall responsibility for the litigation. A Master or District Judge may handle procedural matters on the judge’s directions, and a costs judge can be involved in case management hearings where costs are likely to be complex.
The claimants are typically required to serve group particulars of claim covering the claims on the register at the time of filing. The specific facts of each individual claim are often captured through a questionnaire or a schedule approved by the court. The defendant then responds to the allegations in the group particulars, while individual issues are dealt with as directed.
Test claims and binding judgments
One of the GLO’s defining features is the binding effect of decisions on the common issues. Under CPR 19.23, a judgment or order on one or more GLO issues is generally binding on the parties to all other claims on the register at the time it is given, unless the court orders otherwise. In 2024, the Court of Appeal made an order disapplying that binding effect, but stressed it did so on exceptional facts and that parties should ordinarily expect to be bound.
The court may also direct that one or more claims proceed as test claims, resolving key issues that inform how the rest of the group is handled. If a test claim settles, the court may substitute another claim in its place. Parties adversely affected by a binding judgment may seek permission to appeal.
How costs are shared in a GLO
Costs are where group litigation becomes genuinely different from ordinary litigation. CPR 46.6 splits costs into two categories:
- Common costs – costs of resolving the GLO issues, costs of test claims while they are running as test claims, and the lead representative’s costs of administering the group;
- Individual costs – costs incurred in relation to a particular claim on the register.
Unless the court orders otherwise, an order for common costs against group litigants imposes several liability for an equal proportion on each of them. That means each claimant’s exposure to the group’s shared costs is generally calculated as an equal share, rather than being tied to the size of their own claim.
The general rule in England and Wales is that the unsuccessful party pays a proportion of the successful party’s costs, but the court retains wide discretion in group cases. For personal injury claims, Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting usually protects claimants from adverse costs orders except in limited circumstances. Costs budgeting is often used to keep expenditure proportionate, and specific rules apply where a case is removed from the register partway through.
Paying to bring a group claim
Few claimants fund a group claim entirely from their own pocket. The common arrangements include conditional fee agreements (where part of the legal fee depends on success), damages-based agreements, after-the-event insurance against adverse costs, and third-party litigation funding provided by specialist funders.
This area has been in flux. In 2023, the Supreme Court held in the PACCAR case that certain litigation funding agreements that gave the funder a share of damages were damages-based agreements and therefore unenforceable unless they complied with the DBA regulations. The Civil Justice Council’s Review of Litigation Funding, published on 2 June 2025, made 58 recommendations. Its central recommendation was legislation to clarify that litigation funding is distinct from damages-based agreements, together with a “light-touch” regulatory framework and extra protections where funding supports consumers, representative actions, or group litigation.
As of 2026, the position remains unsettled. In December 2025 the government indicated it intended to accept two key recommendations – clarifying that funding agreements are not DBAs and introducing proportionate regulation – but stated it would legislate “when parliamentary time allows.” Until then, PACCAR remains in force, and funding agreements continue to be drafted and reviewed with its consequences in mind. The finance costs of funding are generally not recoverable from the opposing party in England and Wales, although the review recommended an exception in limited circumstances.
Group litigation rarely stays confined to the courtroom. Because it can involve large numbers of people and significant sums, it often features in mainstream reporting and public debate about how mass claims should be funded and regulated. Readers looking for additional legal context on how these disputes are covered and discussed can find it in outlets that report on the business and legal dimensions of collective claims.
Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
The UK does not have a single collective redress system. Scotland introduced a group procedure under the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018, available in the Court of Session from 2020. It is an opt-in model in practice: a representative party must be authorised by the court, permission to proceed as group proceedings is required, and claims must raise issues that are the same as, or similar or related to, each other.
Northern Ireland has no dedicated GLO regime comparable to England and Wales. Multi-party disputes there typically proceed through representative actions, joint claims, or test cases under the Rules of the Court of Judicature.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal operates a distinct regime for competition claims under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. A class representative must be certified by the Tribunal through a collective proceedings order, which specifies whether the proceedings are opt-in or opt-out. A 2020 Supreme Court decision established a comparatively low threshold for certification, and the regime has since produced notable outcomes – including a 2025 judgment in which the Tribunal found in favour of a class representative against Apple, with an estimated £1.5 billion potentially due to around 36 million class members. The government ran a call for evidence on the future scope of the opt-out regime between August and October 2025.
What claimants can realistically expect
Group litigation is usually measured in years, not months. The common issues are resolved first, and individual claims may be dealt with afterwards or as part of a settlement. Many group claims settle before trial, subject to court approval where required. Where money is recovered, how it is distributed – and what deductions apply for legal fees, insurance, or funding – depends on the agreements in place and, in some forums, on court approval of those terms.
None of this comes with guarantees. Whether a claim is certified, how long it takes, and what any individual ultimately receives depend on the specific case, the evidence, the funding arrangements, and the decisions of the court. Anyone considering joining a group claim is generally advised to seek independent legal advice before signing anything.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to be named in a group litigation claim?
In a GLO, generally yes – your claim must be issued and entered on the group register, so you are a party to your own claim. In a representative action or an opt-out collective proceeding, you may be bound without being individually named.
Is it free to join a group claim?
Not necessarily. Funding arrangements vary widely, and there can be costs implications. Many group claims are run under conditional fee agreements or with third-party funding, but the terms – and any liability if the claim fails – depend on the specific agreement.
What happens if a group claim loses?
It depends on the funding structure and the type of claim. Adverse costs risk is often managed through after-the-event insurance and, in personal injury claims, Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting. There is no single answer that applies across all cases.
Can I leave a group claim after joining?
A party to a claim on the group register can apply to the management court for the claim to be removed. Whether removal is granted, and what costs follow, depends on the circumstances and any funding agreement.
Is a UK group litigation order the same as a US class action?
No. A GLO manages multiple separate claims and decides the common issues, whereas a US-style class action typically consolidates claims into a single representative proceeding. The two systems differ in how members join, how damages are assessed, and how costs are allocated.
How long does a group claim take?
There is no fixed timeline. Complex group litigation often runs for several years, and the duration depends on the number of claims, the issues in dispute, disclosure, and whether the case settles or goes to trial.
The direction of travel
What makes UK group litigation worth watching is that its procedural rules and its funding rules are moving at different speeds. The GLO framework has been stable for years, built around registers, management courts, and binding determinations of common issues. The funding landscape around it is far less settled: the Civil Justice Council has set out a detailed reform blueprint, the government has accepted its headline direction, but the legislation needed to implement it has not yet arrived. For now, claimants, law firms, and funders are working with the framework as it stands – one that is deliberately cautious about when a group claim should be allowed to proceed, and equally deliberate about spreading the cost of the common issues across the group when it is.
