Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Becca Hogan comments on the High Court being due to consider whether claims tied to Johnson & Johnson's talc products can proceed under a group litigation order, and what this would mean for how complex product liability claims are managed in the UK, in Law360.
Becca's comments were published in Law360, 29 April 2026, and can be found here.
Commenting on key hurdles the court will consider when granting a group litigation order, Becca said, "Based on our experience of acting on other mass claims, the Defendant often does not object to the GLO mechanism and in such cases, the granting of a GLO becomes a rubber-stamping exercise. The GLO brings with it a greater degree of active management by the Court which has advantages to both Claimants and Defendants when dealing with large volumes of claims. However, challenges arise where there are insufficient numbers of claims, or where the claims do not relate to sufficiently common issues."
On the the evidential and causation challenges for product liability and group claims in the UK, Becca commented, "The key challenge for a case like this is establishing the causal link between the product and the damage alleged. In what is essentially a personal injury case, it will involve a detailed factual enquiry. In order to be successful, the Claimants will need to establish that damage was caused wholly or partly by the defective product, and that there were no other intervening factors that break the chain of causation. If the Claimants merely rely on other successful cases in other jurisdictions or broad arguments, this should not be deemed sufficient. Defendants must therefore insist for a case-by-case analysis and a strong causation threshold to protect their interests."
Considering whether this case could mark a turning point for UK group actions in product liability, Becca added, "There is an upward trend of mass tort claims in the UK, and this latest claim against J&J is another part of that landscape. However, notwithstanding the general trend, at this stage, we do not see this claim as offering anything unique in the way of a turning point. It will create media attention, for sure, but it should not be a case that revolutionises the current positions in our view."
