Novel points about group representative actions - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
13/09/24. Case: Claire Smyth v British Airways plc and Easyjet Airline Company Limited [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB)
Date of judgment: 2 September 2024
Smyth v British Airways is a notable recent example of a group representative action being struck out and raises novel points about such claims. There is much in this judgment to consider for practitioners bringing or defending representative actions on both the application of the “same interest” principle and the judge’s discretionary finding that the dominant motive for the action was a financial one.
Facts
The lead claimant, Ms Smyth, had her flight from London Gatwick to Nice cancelled less than seven days before it was due to depart and was therefore entitled to seek to claim compensation under Article 7(1) of EU Regulation 261/2004 in the value presently of £250. Ms Smyth elected not to use the airline’s online portal to claim compensation and instead instructed direct access counsel to write a letter before action on behalf of a very large class of individuals who had booked flights with the defendant airlines between 1 December 2016 and 31 August 2022. A Part 8 Claim Form was later served with a Schedule listing approximately 116,000 flights. The claim was funded by an Australian citizen resident in Monaco who was also Ms Smyth’s employer.
Relevant principles
The defendants opposed the constitution of the claim as a representative action and sought an order striking it out or an order under rule 19.8(2) that Ms Smyth “may not act as a representative”. The judge directed himself to the guidance on...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/cb34inc
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
