Inside the UK’s Most Controversial Class Action Firm
Tom Borman, LawFuel contributing editor
Private jets, yachts and lavish spending are some of the claims against Thomas Goodhead, co-founder of Pogust Goodhead who is now at the center of one of the most significant governance crises in modern UK law firm litigation, according to a Times report.
Pogust Goodhead (former SPG Law) secured a £450 million debt facility and is now seeing its co-founder CEO ousted before its headline case reaches judgment.
Thomas Goodhead co-founded Pogust Goodhead with U.S. class action veteran Harris Pogust, propelling the firm into the big league in 2023 when it secured a reported £450 million investment from funder Gramercy Funds Management to back its mega-litigation ambitions.
The firm set its sights on multibillion-pound claims, including the Brazilian dam disaster (the 2015 Mariana dam collapse against BHP and Vale SA) and the UK “diesel-gate” emissions action.
The Pogust Goodhead situation represents a significant trend in UK legal services: third-party funders assuming greater power over law firm operations and litigation strategy. Supporters argue the firm remains a champion of group rights and access to justice, while critics warn it risks becoming a template for “hedge fund law,” with investors seeking litigation profits at the potential expense of legal ethics.
With recent additional funding, Pogust Goodhead’s total debt now exceeds $1.7 billion, including a major £65 million credit facility from Gramercy. The firm currently represents over 640,000 Brazilian claimants in what has become the largest class action in UK history, alongside 1.6 million claimants in diesel emissions litigation.
The Leadership Crisis
In August 2025, the Financial Times reported Goodhead’s abrupt ousting as CEO following tensions with Gramercy. The firm quickly installed a new board, placing COO Alicia Alinia in interim charge, and appointed former Dentons chair Howard Morris among other board members to stabilize governance.
The leadership upheaval occurred against a backdrop of serious allegations. According to The Times, an internal investigation found claims of lavish travel, private jets, yacht parties, and director’s-loan expenses tied to Goodhead’s tenure. Auditors earlier flagged “material uncertainty” about Pogust Goodhead’s ability to continue as a going concern, while the firm implemented 20% staff cuts in 2024.
The £1.3 Billion Fee Battle
Beyond internal turmoil, Pogust Goodhead has launched legal action against BHP and Vale, alleging a coordinated effort by the mining giants to deprive the firm and its clients of nearly £1.3 billion in legal fees connected to the Mariana dam litigation. The firm claims compensation settlements in Brazil were structured to exclude Pogust Goodhead and invalidate its fee entitlements, jeopardizing both its business model and ongoing group actions.
BHP has denied all claims, terming the allegations meritless. For Pogust Goodhead, this litigation represents more than a fight for fees—it could set a precedent for cross-border class actions and global legal fee recovery mechanisms, with implications for funders’ influence and claimants’ rights protection in future mass torts.
Funder Control and Legal Ethics
The most contentious aspect of the Pogust Goodhead saga involves third-party litigation funding and lawyer independence. Restructuring consultant Huw Dolphin now holds more than 75 percent of equity voting rights, supplanting Goodhead as the person of significant control. This arrangement has raised critical questions about whether the firm maintains genuine autonomy despite Gramercy’s dominant position.
In England and Wales, solicitor independence rules are clear in requiring the solicitor to maintain independent control of litigation decisions. Yet Pogust Goodhead’s financial architecture heavily involves Gramercy, prompting the fundamental question regarding who is actually running the firm.
Some observers have noted the increasing blurring of lines between legal and financial decision-making. With a hedge fund holding the majority of voting rights, the regulatory and ethical framework for Pogust Goodhead may soon be tested in court and within the legal profession itself. UK rules dictate that lawyers, not financiers, must ultimately control litigation strategy.
Implications for the Legal Profession
The Pogust Goodhead situation carries significant implications across the legal sector:
For claimant litigation firms: This serves as a warning signal that financial innovation combined with mega-funding creates increased pressure on the duty of independence and ethical guardrails. When firms tie their fate to huge external financing, governance dysfunction and business risk become existential rather than abstract.
For defendant firms and in-house counsel: An opposing side whose internal stability appears shaky provides potential leverage in court management or settlement strategy discussions.
For law firm leadership: The case demonstrates how branding as a “global class action disruptor” imposes substantial risk. The ambitious model—raising hundreds of millions, taking on major corporations, claiming justice for millions—comes with a significant accountability ledger.
The Broader Context
The Bottom Line
Thomas Goodhead may have steered one of the most ambitious claimant-firm projects of recent years, but the detour into funder-driven ambition, alleged lavish spending, and boardroom upheaval tells a cautionary tale: scale isn’t just about more clients and bigger cases—it’s about governance, ethics, and survival.
If Pogust Goodhead survives the storm and wins its headline cases, it might yet justify the model. If not, it becomes a cautionary footnote in why “big-litigation” isn’t just about lawyering, it’s about managing business risk, maintaining independence, and preserving the ethical requirements required in the legal profession.
