In February, the High Court ruled in California State Teachers’ Retirement System v Boohoo Group PLC [2026] EWHC 335 (Comm) ("Boohoo") that the starting point for split trials in group claims under section 90A/Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act ("FSMA") ("s.90A claims") should be to try as many aspects of the claim as possible at trial 1.  

This judgment indicates that claimants in s.90A claims may be required to engage with claimant-side issues, such as reliance, at an early stage of the proceedings, rather than postponing them to trial 2 . Such an approach to case management may have costs implications for claimants and encourage all parties to engage with all aspects of the claim from the outset.

This blog provides an overview of the Court’s decision in the first CMC in the Boohoo case and its implications for s.90A claims.

The Boohoo case: An overview

The claim arises from allegations published in the Sunday Times on 5 July 2020 concerning wages and working conditions of Boohoo Group Plc employees at a Leicester-based factory producing garments for fashion company. Following the Sunday Times article, Boohoo’s share price fell by approximately 42% (representing a £1.5 billion decline in Boohoo's share value). There was also a 2023 BBC Panorama investigation into Boohoo which uncovered alleged unethical supply chain practices.

Between 1 January 2017 and 25 September 2020, Boohoo published a variety of annual reports, interim results, RNS announcements and modern slavery statements (the “Published Information”) relevant to the claims. The claimants allege that they suffered losses as a result of untrue/misleading information (or lack thereof) in the Published Information. Boohoo is accused of being engaged in "bluewashing", a practice whereby a company overstates its adherence to human rights, social and ethical standards. The claims have been brought by a group of institutional and retail investors. Boohoo denies the claims.

The split trial model in FSMA Claims

While the Court in s.90A claims has traditionally ordered a split trial model, the nature of that split has often varied from case-to-case. For example, in some previous s.90A claims, the Court had taken the approach that defendant‑side liability issues (accuracy of published statements, including omissions and/or dishonest delay, PDMR knowledge, attribution) should be addressed in trial 1, with claimant‑side issues (reliance, standing, loss and quantum) deferred to trial 2.

Clarification in approach to the split trial model

The CMC in the Boohoo case took place on 9 and 10 February 2026. At the CMC, the claimants argued that liability and standing should be heard as part of trial 1, and reliance should be deferred to trial 2 (together with issues of loss and quantum), while Boohoo sought to have reliance addressed in trial 1. The Court ultimately determined the issue in Boohoo’s favour. 

Mr Justice Michael Green held that "there is not a one size fits all" approach to case management of s.90A claims. Green J confirmed that the starting point is to "try as much as possible in Trial 1" and that the parties should "expect to have all aspects of the claim tried at first trial", save for quantum, where it is reasonable to do so (see [29] and [44-45]). He considered this to be a "better use of resources and case management" than to defer additional matters to a further trial, particularly given the Court’s familiarity with complex commercial matters and the overall trial timetable (see [40]).

Importantly, Green J rejected the suggestion that RSA, G4S and Serco established the "so-called orthodox" position that reliance should be split off into trial 2 (see [44]). In terms of reliance, the parties in the Boohoo case agreed that the issue of reliance should be tried by reference to a sample of claimants. However, Green J required the claimants to provide full particulars of reliance and agree a proposed sample of claimants by the next CMC, emphasising the need to “keep pressure” on claimants to engage with reliance issues (see [79]).

This is a significant case management development because parties to s.90A claims frequently dispute the appropriate approach to split trials.

Key Takeaways

In summary, the key implications of the Boohoo decision are as follows:

• More issues at trial 1: There is no "one size fits all" approach to the case management of s.90A claims, but Courts are likely to expect parties to include as many issues, such as liability, standing and reliance at trial 1.
• Litigation Funding: To the extent that claimants are required to do more work upfront, this may increase the claimants' (and their funders') costs burden in the early stages of s.90A proceedings. Although, theoretically at least, these costs will be incurred in any event, by shifting them earlier in the proceedings and encouraging the parties to engage with substantive issues, such as reliance, parties may be incentivised to reach earlier settlements.
• s.90 FSMA Claims: Although Green J did not expressly address it, it is logical that the approach to split trials for s.90A claims may apply to s.90 FSMA claims.