In brief
- Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) remain a valuable tool in multi-party proceedings, but recent decisions show English courts are increasingly selective as to when they are made.
- The courts favour flexibility in multi-party proceedings, and may prefer to adopt bespoke case management directions rather than a formal GLO.
- The threshold for GLOs is fact specific – they will only be granted where there are genuine common issues and sufficient claimant numbers.
Introduction
GLOs have been a feature of litigation in England and Wales since 2000, a result of the recommendations in Lord Woolf's Access to Justice Final Report. Since then, over 125 GLOs have been made, in respect of a wide range of cases. However, in recent years uncertainty surrounding the use and utility of GLOs has built and parties have embraced alternative procedures for bringing multi-party proceedings. In this article we consider recent trends relating to GLOs, and how to make the most effective use of the process.
Advantages of GLOs
GLOs were introduced in an effort to address some of the problems created by multi-party litigation, and offer a framework within which claims may be case managed together. If the court considers that it is appropriate to make a GLO, a group register for the relevant claims is established, GLO issues are specified, the GLO is publicised and a judge is appointed to manage the claim and hear the GLO issues.
In some ways, the parties to the claims on the group register are then treated collectively: any judgment or order made in relation to a GLO issue will be binding on all the parties unless the court orders otherwise, and disclosure of documents relating to the GLO issues will be to all parties on the group register. The court may appoint lead solicitors, require the service of group particulars of claim, and will impose several liability for an equal proportion of the costs incurred in relation to GLO issues (known as "common costs").
In appropriate cases, a GLO reduces duplication and procedural complexity, as well as ensuring close judicial oversight. For claimants, a GLO can thus deliver access to justice by reducing individual cost, limiting liability for common costs and enabling claims to be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible whilst delivering consistent results.
Perhaps inevitably, defendants are often hostile to GLOs, particularly given the significant and growing exposure they can face until any specified cut-off date for entry onto the group register. The requirement to publicise claims can also be far from welcome. However, like claimants, defendants can benefit from the more clearly managed and predictable process offered by a GLO, as well as the finality of dealing with large numbers of claims simultaneously.
GLOs granted
The court applies a three stage test to determine whether to grant a GLO: (i) do the claims have "common or related issues of law or fact"; (ii) are there (or are there likely to be) a number of claims giving rise to those common or related issues; and (iii) is it appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to grant a GLO.
Recent decisions demonstrate that the key issue is often the first. In Lungowe v Vedanta Resources (2020) , a GLO was granted in relation to claims brought by over 3,700 residents of Chingola region in Zambia, for personal injury and environmental damage arising out of mining activities. The issues were described as "classic GLO issues" involving the same mine, the same type of damage, the same waterways, and broadly the same periods. Similarly, in Alame v Royal Dutch Shell (2022), a GLO was granted in principle in respect of claims by nearly 2,400 individuals and communities arising out of oil spills occurring from pipelines and ground contamination in the Niger Delta (although, since the application was somewhat premature in circumstances where the common or related issues had not yet been agreed or identified with sufficient specificity, the application was adjourned). Meanwhile, ultimately 13 GLOs involving, on some estimates, 1.6 million claimants were granted in the various NOx emissions cases, in which the claimants allege that diesel vehicles sold by the defendants contained prohibited devices which reduced the effectiveness of emission control systems. Interestingly, in Various Claimants v Nissan Motor Co Ltd (2024) the court determined six of these GLO applications at a consolidated hearing following an unprecedented intervention in the NOx emissions proceedings by the President of the King's Bench Division.
Tongue v Bayer PLC (2023) was a rather different case, concerning claims arising out of contraceptive devices, in which again it was held that a GLO was appropriate as the claims raised the common issue of whether the device was defective or provided negligently. While only 200 claimants had been identified, the court nevertheless considered that was a sufficient number to make a GLO.
GLOs denied
However, recent cases also demonstrate that the court will not be reticent to refuse a GLO where it considers that the threshold requirements have not been met or a GLO would be inappropriate.
Thus, in Abbott v MOD (2023), a GLO was refused in respect of claims by former military personnel for noise-induced hearing loss. Unusually, the application was supported by the defendants but opposed by a significant number of claimants in other proceedings. The court accepted that granting a GLO would restrict access to justice for those claimants and that the fact-sensitive nature of the claims meant a GLO would not be appropriate. Meanwhile, in Abernethy v Barclays (2025), in respect of secret commission claims against various financial institutions, the court held that many of the proposed GLO issues were not truly common or related issues, test cases would provide limited binding decisions, and a GLO would allocate disproportionate court resources without obviating the need for individual hearings.
A common reason given for refusing a GLO is that conventional case management powers can achieve the same advantages as a GLO. Thus, in Moon v Link Fund Solutions (2022), a case involving claims arising out of investments in an equity fund, a GLO was refused where the court noted that only two claimant firms were proceeding and that they were already cooperating effectively (throwing the need for a lead solicitor firm into question) and there was limited prospect of significant future claimants joining. Similarly, in Hamon v UCL (2024), concerning breach of contract claims arising out of a failure by a university to provide in-person, campus based tuition and access to facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held that a GLO would not promote fairness or save costs, few additional claims were expected, costs sharing could be achieved without a GLO, and making a GLO would in fact lead to additional delay and unnecessary expense.
Meanwhile, in Webster v Treloars Trust (2025), the court refused a GLO sought in respect of claims arising out of the contaminated blood scandal in circumstances where the approval and implementation of a government compensation scheme intended to provide full compensation to victims was imminent. Emphasising the importance of promoting use of alternative dispute resolution methods, in the court's view it would not be appropriate to approve a GLO until the potential claimants had made claims in accordance with the scheme.
Alternatives to GLO
In recent years, parties have sought to make ever more use of alternative procedural mechanisms to bring multi-party proceedings, whether that be the representative action under CPR 19.8 (with its restrictive "same interest" requirement), or use of omnibus claim forms for claims which can be "conveniently disposed of" in the same proceedings.
Indeed, as some of the above cases indicate, the English courts increasingly see tailored case management in multi-party proceedings as a preferable alternative to formal GLOs. So, despite involving over 600,000 claimants, in Municipio De Mariana v BHP Group (2025), a claim arising out of environmental damage caused by the collapse of the a Brazilian dam, the court made bespoke directions rather than a formal GLO in circumstances where it was clear that there were a number of common issues affecting all, or a substantial class, of the claimants. Meanwhile, in Rowe v Ingenious Media (2021), claims by multiple parties were case managed through the selection of lead claimants without any requirement for a formal GLO structure, and in White v Uber (2025) (a group action in which Mishcon de Reya is representing 13,000 black cab drivers against Uber and its parent companies), the High Court recently ordered a trial of preliminary issues to be determined in relation to a sample of the claimant cohort.
Most recently, in Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd (2026), a claim currently involving 24 claimants but potentially increasing to over 100, the court ordered a split trial on liability by reference to lead claimants. The case, concerning working and living conditions at two Malaysian factories where each individual claim was likely to be relatively modest and a decision on liability in respect of a number of lead claimants would assist settlement of the remaining claims, was a paradigm example of one where it would be convenient to try a representative sample of lead cases.
Conclusion
The growth in multi-party proceedings before the English courts shows no sign of slowing. Indeed, recent cases, including the NOx emissions trial and the judgment in Municipio De Mariana, both in November 2025, as well large group actions that are scheduled to come before the courts this year, including a trial of test cases in Hamon v UCL and the second stage of the NOx emissions trial, demonstrate the ability of the English courts to accommodate mammoth claims, whether through the formal mechanism of the GLO, or carefully case managed multi-party proceedings.