UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal strike out of bifurcated representative actions in shareholder claims
The UK Supreme Court has declined to grant permission to appeal the strike out of representative actions brought by shareholders against Indivior PLC and Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, marking the end of efforts by a Claimant group to pursue their claim using the representative procedure.
This follows the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wirral Council v Indivior and Reckitt Benckiser ([2025] EWCA Civ 40), handed down in January, which upheld the High Court’s ruling to strike out the claim. The Representative Claimant was proposing to use a bifurcated structure for a claim under section 90/90A and Schedule 10/10A Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), where only common issues—such as the nature of the alleged misleading statements—would be addressed initially, with individual issues like reliance, causation, and loss to be dealt with later.
The Representative Claimant had sought to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had confirmed the importance of issues of reliance in this type of claim and also of preserving the Court’s case management powers. The Court of Appeal found that pursuing the alternative multi-party proceedings (which have been issued but not served as an alternative to the representative action) was “not only feasible but is in accordance with the overriding objective”.
The UK Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a further appeal brings the representative action proceedings to a close, and the decision marks a significant milestone in the evolving landscape of collective shareholder actions in the UK. For more background, see our earlier blog posts here and here.
About
Freshfields partners Sarah Parkes and Emma Probyn (alongside Maisie Stewart, Anoushka Nightingale and Elke Kendall) act for Indivior PLC, one of the respondents in these claims, instructing Conall Patton KC of One Essex Court.
