The Supreme Court's recent decision in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2026] UKSC 24 confirmed that judgments in GLO test cases do not necessarily bind future GLO claimants. 

What is a GLO?

A Group Litigation Order ("GLO") is a case management mechanism that enables the court to manage multiple claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law. Rather than each claim proceeding entirely separately, the court can determine common issues through test cases, with those findings then applying across the wider group of claimants.

Under Civil Procedure Rule (“CPR”) 19.23(1)(a), a judgment or Order made in group litigation is binding on all other parties named on the GLO group register at that time, “unless the court orders otherwise”. The AXA case explored the circumstances in which a court may "order otherwise" and depart from a binding GLO test case ruling. 

What was AXA about?

The specific question in AXA was whether GLO claimants could continue to rely on a favourable test case determination where the law had subsequently changed. AXA argued that, pursuant to CPR 19.23, the test cases were binding and therefore AXA was entitled to Orders based on the law as it stood at the time that the test case was determined, rather than pursuant to the current state of the law (which had subsequently changed to AXA’s detriment on certain issues, including limitation). 

The Supreme Court disagreed. It confirmed that, although the power to “order otherwise” is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, it nonetheless permits the Court to disapply the binding effect of an earlier test case ruling on other claims on the group register where justice requires this. The Court recognised the importance of finality, efficiency and certainty within the GLO regime, but held that those considerations could not justify perpetuating a decision that subsequent case law had shown to be wrong .

Future implications

The practical consequence of the decision is significant. Test case judgments remain central to the operation of GLOs, but AXA confirms that they are not immune from later developments in the law. Where the legal landscape has materially changed, subsequent GLO claims may be determined by reference to the law as it presently stands, rather than the law as understood when the test case was decided. In those circumstances, the benefit of the earlier ruling may be confined to those who got there first. Sometimes, you just had to be there. 

To find out more please contact a member of our Commercial Disputes team.