When a bank or an institution has done the same thing to a number of people, the loss is often too large to absorb and too expensive to litigate alone. Brought together, the same claim becomes viable. The evidence is shared, the cost is shared, and an opponent who would happily outspend one claimant has to face all of them at once.
Sinels acts for the claimants. We are not here to break up group actions on behalf of the institution being sued. We are the firm that brings them.
Recover what was taken, share the cost of proving it, and make the institution answer for it.
Secure a Group Claim Assessment
What We Have Actually Done
We think it is worth being straightforward about this, because the phrase “class action” is used loosely.
Jersey has no US-style opt-out class action regime, and the volume of true group litigation on the Island is small. Our own most significant group claim was a mis-selling action against a financial institution which recovered £40 million. The class was four. It was, in every practical sense, a class action: one course of conduct, one body of evidence, one opponent, four claimants who would each have struggled alone.
The decisive factor in that case was not the size of the group. It was that we pulled the intelligence ourselves, early, and built the claim on documents rather than on assertion.
We have looked at other group claims and turned them down, including matters where the timing or the underlying science did not support a viable action. We would rather tell you at the outset that a claim does not work than take it on and bill you for finding out.
Why Mis-selling Claims Suit Group Treatment
Mis-selling is rarely a one-off. Where a product has been sold on a flawed basis, the same documents, the same sales process and frequently the same individuals sit behind every sale.
That has three consequences. The disclosure obtained for one claimant tends to assist all of them. The pattern itself becomes evidence, because a single misunderstanding is deniable and a systematic practice is not. And the cost of expert and forensic work, which is what usually decides these cases, is spread rather than borne alone.
We have sued a lot of banks. We are able to do so because we hold no institutional retainers, no external stakeholders and no client relationships that would prevent us from acting against a major financial institution. Firms tied to the banks and the large trust companies frequently cannot take these cases at all.
How We Approach a Group Claim
Establish the Facts Before Issuing
We front-end load. Before proceedings are issued we assemble the documents, the sales files, the correspondence and the accounting, and we test whether the same conduct genuinely affected each proposed claimant. A group claim that has not been tested this way tends to fracture under pressure at exactly the wrong moment.
Build the Group Properly
The claimants must share a genuine common interest, and the arrangements between them need to be agreed at the outset: who instructs, how costs are shared, and what happens if one claimant wishes to settle and others do not. Getting this wrong is the most common reason group claims fail for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits.
Choose the Right Procedural Route
Complex multi-party claims are usually brought by Order of Justice, setting out full particulars and the relief sought. Where the matter concerns a trust or requires directions from the Court, proceedings may instead begin by Representation. Multi-party disputes can also be managed as representative proceedings under Rule 4/3 of the Royal Court Rules, or by consolidating similar individual claims for hearing together.
Settle From Strength, Litigate If We Must
Most group claims resolve without a trial. They resolve on better terms when the opponent can see that the evidence has already been assembled and that the claimants are willing and funded to go the distance. Our aim is a resolution, reached from a position of strength, in as little court time as the case allows.
Why Claimants Instruct Sinels
We operate completely free of institutional conflicts of interest. For anyone taking on a bank, a trust company or a public authority, that is usually the whole decision.
We are a litigation practice, not a full-service firm with a litigation department. Group claims are decided on evidence and on stamina, and we have thirty years of both.
Speak directly with a senior Jersey Advocate about your claim.
Engage Our Group Claims Team
Or Call Us: +44 (0)1534 620500
Frequently Asked Questions About Class Actions
Does Jersey law permit US-style class actions?
Jersey does not feature a formal, US-style ‘opt-out’ class action regime. Instead, multi-party disputes are managed through representative proceedings under Rule 4/3 of the Royal Court Rules, or via bespoke case management where similar individual claims are consolidated and heard together. This makes how the group is constituted at the outset a decisive question, rather than an administrative one.
Do we all have to have identical claims?
No, but you must share a genuine common interest. Claims that arise from the same course of conduct, the same product or the same misrepresentation will usually qualify, even where the individual losses differ in size. Part of the early work is establishing exactly where the claims overlap and where they diverge.
Is third-party litigation funding allowed in Jersey group disputes?
Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Jersey, provided the arrangements are properly structured. The plaintiff must retain absolute control of the proceedings, and the agreement must not border on champerty or maintenance, nor prejudice the defendant. Properly structured funding can make a claim viable that would otherwise be unaffordable.
How is a multi-party claim begun in the Royal Court of Jersey?
Complex multi-party commercial actions are typically instituted via an Order of Justice, which sets out full particulars of the claim and the specific relief sought. For trust matters or cases requiring court directions, proceedings may begin via a Representation.
What if the loss is large but the group is small?
Group size is not the test. A claim brought by four claimants can be run in exactly the same way as one brought by forty, and can recover a great deal of money. What matters is that the conduct complained of is common to all of you and that the evidence can be assembled once and used for everyone.
