The Supreme Court has given judgment in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2026] UKSC 24.

28/07/26

The Supreme Court has given judgment in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2026] UKSC 24.

The litigation arises out of the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation Order, established in 2003. The key question in the appeal was the effect of a decision of Henderson J in the trial of the GLO in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch), [2014] STC 1236. The appellants were not party to that trial but argued that Henderson J had given a “judgment or order” in relation to “one or more GLO issues”, and that they were entitled to the benefit of that judgment or order by virtue of the rules in Part 19.

HMRC accepted that there was a relevant order in respect of one set of issues (the “Set Off Issue”) but not another (the “Limitation Issue”). For the Set Off Issue, HMRC argued that the Court should “order otherwise” pursuant to CPR 19.23(1). For the Limitation Issue, HMRC argued that the general law should be applied to the resolution of the case.

The Supreme Court agreed with HMRC on both points and therefore dismissed the appeal. The leading judgment was given by Lady Rose and Lord Richards; Lord Leggatt filed a concurring judgment. The judgments provide guidance on CPR Part 19 (concerned with the operation of group litigation) in general terms; but the principal significance of the case is probably the substantial discussion in both judgments of the Court’s power to “order otherwise”.

The judgment can be found here.