Vodafone: Co-counselling very much the exception
A High Court judge has agreed to let 62 former Vodafone franchisees be represented by two law firms in their £85m claim against the mobile phone company.
Mr Justice Bryan said [1] the claimants argued that economies could be achieved by using listed law firm Knights for many aspects of the litigation at “considerably lower hourly rates”, while drawing on the expertise of City firm Bird & Bird “where necessary”.
He stressed that, due to the potential disadvantages, separate representation “is very much the exception rather than the norm, is not to be encouraged and, if it is to be allowed, must be applied for, and justified, on the facts of a particular case”.
The claimants argued that “the reality” of their experiences as franchisees “is a long way from that which they imagined when they went into business with Vodafone”, the judge explained.
When the proceedings began, all 62 were represented by IBB Law, which was acquired by Knights in early 2025.
However, the day after service of the proceedings, Bird & Bird came on the record for half the claimants, with “no explanation” provided for the change. But the application to be co-counsel was only made last month, shortly before the long-scheduled case management conference.
Bryan J said: “The rationale for the co-counsel in the present case appears to be that without it the claimants could not afford appropriate representation to trial, which it is said would be a denial of access to justice, and that economies can be achieved by using Knights for many aspects of the litigation (with considerably lower hourly rates) whilst drawing upon the expertise of Bird & Bird where necessary.
“If one were starting with a blank canvas before litigation had commenced, I doubt whether the court would view such a model favourably (at least without appropriate safeguards) given the risks as to duplication of costs and the like and, starting from scratch, one might envisage that one firm could properly handle the litigation and at proportionate cost.”
However, the reality was that the action has been proceeding “for a considerable period of time now” and a package of measures was proposed “which has assuaged Vodafone’s concerns”.
Bryan J said this led him to conclude that it was appropriate to accede to the co-counselling application, subject to certain conditions.
The most important was that “any order for costs in the claimant’s favour in these proceedings will be limited to those costs which would have been incurred if the claimants had instructed one firm of solicitors”.
Others included nominating Knights as responsible for all case management matters, with Bird & Bird simply copied in to correspondence; the City firm “should not normally need to review the same”.
Bryan J ordered that Vodafone should have its costs of the application, which he summarily assessed at £17,900.