header-logo header-logo

CAT advice when calculating costs

30 July 2025
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition
printer mail-detail
People bringing collective actions should always instruct costs specialists to help them scrutinise their lawyers’ fees, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has declared

The CAT gave the guidance while approving two collective actions against Amazon worth nearly £4bn in total. It made instructing independent costs specialists a condition of that approval, adding that this should become the ‘standard approach in collective proceedings’, in Robert Hammond v Amazon.com, Inc & Others; Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.com Inc & Others [2025] CAT 42, handed down last week.

Both class representatives, Stephan and Hammond, committed to having a costs professional review their future interim invoices.

David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘Class representatives are understandably heavily reliant on their lawyers in cases as big and complex as these, but with so much money on the line, the tribunal recognised the importance of them having independent advice to ensure that their costs—which ultimately come out of the class’s damages in the event of success—are rigorously policed.

‘Costs lawyers are the people to do this.’

Stephan is bringing a £2.7bn opt-out claim, arguing Amazon abused its dominant position when supplying marketplace services to third-party sellers. The funder is providing backing of up to £33m. Hammond’s £1bn claim, which has a litigation budget of £20m, alleges Amazon used its ‘Buy Box’ to suppress competition. Amazon disputes the allegations.

The CAT panel, chaired by Mr Justice Roth, noted Stephan’s funding agreement provided he would ‘review’ invoices and, at the reasonable request of the funder, seek to have them assessed.

‘We recognise that these provisions provide some protection against unreasonable fees,’ it said. ‘However, we think it is important that [Stephan], independently, should be in a position to subject claims for costs to proper scrutiny. The funder’s interests are not identical to those of the class because, if the action results in recovery for the class, the funder’s expenditure on costs will be reimbursed out of the sum recovered, potentially at the expense of the class.’

The CAT said it was similarly ‘concerned that there should be effective control of costs’ in Hammond’s case.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll