Litigate a multi-party action as if for a single Claimant!
All group action defendants are wealthy; otherwise, they wouldn't be able to pay if you won.

Defeat Costs Weaponisation; Achieve an Equality of Arms!
Wealthy corporate defendants often use significant resources to increase legal costs, discouraging claimants and funders, which can stifle even strong cases.

Disruptive Technology that Defeats Disruptive Tactics!
Defendants use tactics to disrupt litigation. GMT’s disruptive technology counteracts these tactics, significantly changing how legal actions operate.

Reduce Risk, Lower Costs, and Stay on Budget!
GMT’s Group Action Platform (GAP) and proprietary methodology are designed to reduce costs for claimants and curb expenses for defendants.

Exception Management – Exceptional Administration!
GMT handles all aspects of multi-party litigation, including registration, compliance, evidence gathering, claim assessment, and more.

Level the Playing Field – Plug the GAP!
Multi District Litigation, Class Action, Group Action, Class Action Waiver, Multi-Party Litigations, Litigation Funding, After The Event Insurance, Adverse Costs Risk, Pre-registration, Case Set Up, Registration, Identification, Compliance, Fact-Finding, Disclosure, Evidence Gathering, Translation, Auto-Correction, Claim Assessment, Quantification, Exception Management, Algorithmic assessment, Electronic Reporting and Subscription, Security, Communications, Documentation, Settlement, Printing, Bellwether, Lone Pine, GLO, Filing and Archiving, GMT does it all!

Problems with multi-party litigation

Difficult, expensive, fraught with risk for claimants and lawyers alike, Group actions often involve suing wealthy and powerful institutional defendants

Defendants create obstacles to prevent claimants from securing litigation funding, especially in opt IN jurisdictions.

In effect Defendants have no interest in litigating on a “level playing field” and do not believe in “equality or arms” and they use every opportunity to weaponise costs to stifle litigation and to put up barriers for claimants to obtain litigation funding.

They use disruptive tactics to stifle litigation, especially where the loser pays the costs.

GMT’s Solutions for multi-party litigation

The only way to beat disruptive tactics is to defeat it with leading edge disruptive technology that caters for everything that the Defendant can “throw at you”.

GMT’s Group Action Platform (“GAP”) was designed by lawyers with extensive experience and knowledge in the conduct of multi-party claims, taking account of how Defendants in Group Actions invariable conduct litigation;

GMT’s GAP is designed to reduce Claimants’ costs and thwart the Defendants ability to rack up costs primarily aimed at stifling litigation.

Our technology is no ordinary Case Management System.

In fact, it is specialist management technology not only created specifically for group/class actions

It is technology set up specifically for and focussed on a specific case so that every requirement of each individual and specific Group Action is dealt with on a bespoke basis; seamlessly, automatically and in full compliance in an efficient, effective and inexpensive way.

GMT's GAP:-

• Improves the lawyers' efficiency and effectiveness, allowing them to focus on legal work Controls and reduces own costs.
• Curtails the Defendant’s ability to rack up costs and prevent unnecessary disruptions and distractions for lawyers.
• Enables the court – and forces the defendant - to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost while ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing.

Our technology ensures that workflow is logical and automated and based on exception management techniques that are algorithmic, smart and focussed on automatically producing a precise and compliant outcome specifically required by the lawyers for a specific case.

We use controlled AI interventions, translations, document generation and details compliance so that GMT’s Gap enables almost complete “hands free” case management, saving time and money, reducing risk, speeding up the process and allowing the Claimants’ lawyer to take on the corporate defendant in the knowledge that a bullying “cheque book” defence will not prevail; the Defendant will have to fight the case on it’s substantive merits and cannot be stifled.