High Court Orders Stay on GLO Application Brought by UCL Students with £4.4 Million in Litigation Funding
Over three years after the outbreak of Covid-19, claims are still being brought by individuals or groups who suffered losses due to actions taken by organizations during the pandemic. In one example of a funded group claim being brought against a university, the courts have demonstrated a desire for such cases to be resolved outside of the courtroom, and for the parties to make use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) rather than through costly court proceedings. An article in The Law Society Gazette provides the details of judgement by Senior Master Barbara Fontaine in the High Court, which ordered an eight-month stay on the group litigation order (GLO) application made on behalf of 924 students, who claimed that UCL breached its contract in services during strike action and the pandemic. Master Fontaine ordered the stay and adjourned the application, stating: “These claims are all individually of low or modest value, group litigation can be costly, and there is a statute-backed ADR scheme in place, all factors that point in favour of the parties attempting construction discussions through some medium of ADR.” Fontaine cited concerns about the potential for significantly high costs for both parties, noting that the claimants had secured £4.4 million in litigation funding and obtained after-the-event insurance cover for any adverse costs. Fontaine highlighted that due to these factors, if the claimants were successful in their case, they would likely “receive only some two-thirds of the damages awarded to them” and even with 100 per cent of damages, it would represent only “a modest sum for each claimant.” Fontaine encouraged both parties to engage in ADR to find a suitable outcome, highlighting that the length and costly nature of such a group claim were not ideal, especially for a university whose “management, time and funds could be more productively spent than on substantial legal costs.”
