Contratto ImpresaEuropa - Cedam

638 CONTRATTO E IMPRESA / EUROPA
to be proved individually ( 90), and it may well be that such an action
would not be permitted on the facts which give rise to a class action
in the United States ( 91). Moreover, in Markt & Co vs. Knight
Steamship Co ( 92), Fletcher Moulton LJ commented that « In representative
actions . . . [t]he plaintiff is the self-elected representative of
the others. He has not to obtain their consent. It is true that consequently
they are not liable for costs, but they will be bound by the
estoppel created by the decision”.
It is also the case that section 151(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
defines a “party” as « any person who pursuant to or by virtue of rules
of court or any other statutory provision has been served with notice
of, or has intervened in, those proceedings ». But even if one accepts
that an English representative action would not be available on the
facts of a given case, it by no means follows that an English court
would not enforce a US class action judgment in that matter. The approach
taken in the United States may be viewed as a legitimate, albeit
different, method of dealing with actions involving multiple claimants,
to which due deference should be given in English courts.
English law now also recognises the concept of the Group Litigation
Order (GLO) ( 93), where actions raise common issues of fact or
law, but where the interests of the parties concerned are not identical.
CPR 19.12 states that:
(1) Where a judgment or order is given or made in a claim on the group register in
relation to one or more GLO issues –
(a) that judgment or order is binding on the parties to all other claims that are
on the group register at the time the judgment is given or the order is made
unless the court orders otherwise; and
(b)the court may give directions as to the extent to which that judgment or order
is binding on the parties to any claim which is subsequently entered on
the group register.
It is true that English law would require a person to issue a claim
against the defendant and to request to be added to the registered group
( 90 ) Markt & Co vs. Knight Steamship Co [1910] 2 KB 1021.
( 91 ) Although, of course, a procedural mechanism exists in the United States to administer
a plan of allocation after a class action judgment favourable to claimants, whether by
settlement or otherwise, to determine individual losses.
( 92 ) [1910] 2 KB 1021, p. 1039.
( 93 ) For criticism of the uncertain scope of the regime, see Mulheron, The Class Action
in Common Law Legal Systems: a Comparative Perspective, pp. 97-110.