CPR 19.6 representative actions: the rule is now CPR 19.8

Category: Litigation and claims · Reviewed by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-08-22 · ~6 min read

The numbering, plainly

Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules was restructured by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023 (SI 2023/105). Rule 12 of that instrument substituted a new table of contents for Part 19 and renumbered the rules within it, with effect from 6 April 2023. The former rule 19.6 — representative parties with the same interest — became rule 19.8.

Rule 19.6 still exists. It now deals with something quite different: special provisions about adding or substituting parties after the end of a relevant limitation period. So a search for “CPR 19.6” that lands on the current rule text will produce the wrong rule, and a pleading that cites CPR 19.6 for a representative action is citing a number that no longer matches the rule intended.

It is worth saying plainly that the old number remains in very wide use. Almost all of the significant case law, commentary and litigation-funding material about representative actions was written before April 2023 and refers to CPR 19.6 throughout — the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lloyd v Google among it. If you are reading “a CPR 19.6 representative action”, read CPR 19.8. They are the same procedural mechanism.

What the rule says

Rule 19.8(1) provides that where more than one person has the same interest in a claim, the claim may be begun by or against one or more of the persons who have that same interest as representatives of the others, or the court may order that it be continued that way. Rule 19.8(2) allows the court to direct that a person may not act as a representative, and 19.8(3) lets any party apply for such an order.

Rule 19.8(4) is the one that matters commercially: unless the court directs otherwise, a judgment or order in a representative claim is binding on all the persons represented, but may only be enforced by or against a person who is not a party with the permission of the court. That is the structural difference between a representative action and a group litigation order — representation is opt-out and binding, rather than a managed set of individually issued claims.

The “same interest” gateway

Everything turns on the same-interest condition. Where the members of a proposed class have materially different circumstances, different losses or defences that apply to some but not others, they do not share the same interest, and the claim cannot proceed on a representative basis for the whole class. The temptation, for anyone trying to build a large opt-out class, is to strip the claim down to whatever is genuinely common — and that is exactly the manoeuvre the Supreme Court examined in Lloyd.

Lloyd v Google and what it decided

In Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 the claimant sought to bring a representative claim on behalf of several million iPhone users over Google’s so-called “Safari Workaround”, advancing a uniform per-person sum for “loss of control” of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 so that every class member would have the same interest. The Supreme Court held that compensation under that Act required proof of material damage or distress in the individual case, so a uniform tariff award was not available; the representative claim therefore failed. We set the decision out in full in our case entry on Lloyd v Google.

What survived is important. The court did not shut the door on representative actions. It endorsed a bifurcated approach: common issues — whether there was a breach at all, and whether the defendant is liable in principle — can be determined in a representative claim, with individual entitlement and quantum then dealt with separately. That is a slower and less attractive route for funders than a single opt-out damages award, but it is a live one.

Why this matters to insurers and insureds

Representative actions concentrate exposure. A defendant facing one claim form on behalf of a class faces a single set of proceedings whose outcome binds everyone represented, and defence costs are incurred at class scale from the outset. For a policyholder, three questions follow, and all three are answered in the wording rather than in the rules of court.

The first is notification. A letter before action framed as a representative claim is a circumstance that almost always needs reporting under a claims-made policy, and reporting it late is the most common way cover is lost. The second is aggregation: whether a representative claim is one claim or many, for the purposes of the limit and the excess, depends on the aggregation language, not on how the proceedings are constituted. The third is defence costs — whether they sit inside or outside the limit of indemnity changes the economics of defending a class claim considerably.

Practical points

Cite the rule as CPR 19.8, and add “formerly CPR 19.6” where the audience is likely to know it by the old number. Expect to see the old number in judgments, textbooks and pre-2023 pleadings indefinitely.

If you are on the receiving end of one, treat the class definition as the first battleground: the narrower the genuinely common interest, the smaller the claim that can be brought this way. And notify insurers before arguing about any of it.

Frequently asked questions

Is CPR 19.6 still the representative action rule?

No. Since 6 April 2023 the representative action rule has been CPR 19.8. CPR 19.6 now deals with adding or substituting parties after the end of a relevant limitation period. The change was made by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, which renumbered the rules in Part 19; the wording of the representative action rule itself was not rewritten.

Why do so many sources still say CPR 19.6?

Because most of the leading material predates April 2023. The Supreme Court judgment in Lloyd v Google, decided in 2021, refers to CPR 19.6 throughout, and commentary written around it does the same. Anyone citing CPR 19.6 for a representative action means what is now CPR 19.8.

Is a representative action the same as a group litigation order?

No. A representative action under CPR 19.8 is a single claim brought by a representative on behalf of everyone with the same interest, and the judgment binds those represented. A group litigation order is a case management tool for handling many individually issued claims that give rise to common or related issues.

Does a representative claim count as one claim under my policy?

That depends entirely on the aggregation wording in the policy, not on how the proceedings are constituted. Some wordings aggregate claims arising from a single act, omission or originating cause; others are narrower. Check the aggregation clause before assuming a class claim sits within one limit.

Sources

• CPR Part 19 — Civil Procedure Rules (Ministry of Justice)
• CPR rule 19.8 — legislation.gov.uk
• The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105
• Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 — BAILII

This page is general insurance information, not legal advice, and describes the position as at August 2026. Cover depends on the wording of the policy actually in force. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.