Anyone who believes group litigation is a solution to #endourcladdingscandal should take a look at this decision from the Supreme Court this morning.
The case concerns Google's alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 for unauthorised tracking of iPhone user data in 2012.
The case concerns Google's alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 for unauthorised tracking of iPhone user data in 2012.
https://twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/1458375362723946497
2/9 Richard Lloyd -- backed by huge litigation funder Therium -- sought to issue a group claim against Google seeking damages on behalf of around 4 million affected users.
The claim was put on an "opt-out" basis, meaning people would be included without having to sign up.
The claim was put on an "opt-out" basis, meaning people would be included without having to sign up.
3/9 Mr. Lloyd's case was that each individual user had suffered damage as a result of Google's activities, but that it was not necessary to prove the amount of damage for each individual user because they would all claim the same amount of damages.
4/9 Because the particular Google company Mr. Lloyd pursued is based in Delaware, the Court had to give permission for the claim to be served on that company in Delaware.
5/9 The Supreme Court today decided that the claim cannot be served on Google because there is no proof any of the 4 million individual claimants suffered any damage, or the same damage.
The Court said such a claim was only possible if there was proof of damage caused by Google.
The Court said such a claim was only possible if there was proof of damage caused by Google.
6/9 Now, of course, claims in relation to defective buildings are very different in legal terms. But the rules about damage and loss are similar to those considered in this case.
Time limits for bringing claims also often pose difficulty in building cases.
Time limits for bringing claims also often pose difficulty in building cases.
7/9 This case will have cost a fortune. It never left the starting gate, yet still went through the entire English judicial system before today's decision.
Google, facing a claim of potentially billions in damages, had 3 Q.C.'s to make its arguments in the Supreme Court.
Google, facing a claim of potentially billions in damages, had 3 Q.C.'s to make its arguments in the Supreme Court.
8/9 Developers, building materials companies and others will respond no differently to any legal situation that risks exposing them to judgments or administrative decisions that threaten their business.
9/9 That's why litigation of any sort -- on a group basis or otherwise -- will not, in most cases, be a solution to the #BuildingSafetyCrisis
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
