header-logo header-logo

Collective actions at ‘critical juncture’

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition , Consumer
printer mail-detail
The opt-out collective actions regime is facing ‘significant challenges’ but could benefit the UK by £24bn a year if enhanced and expanded, a report by Stephenson Harwood has found

The firm’s report, ‘Realising the benefits of competitive markets’, calls for opt-out cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to be extended to cover data privacy breaches, consumer protection violations and other mass harms as well as competition law breaches. It recommends introducing pre-action protocols and improving early case management, including costs budgeting and stricter timetabling to keep budgets under control in complex cases, and reversing the effects of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision to encourage funders to invest.

It recommends the CAT bring approval of funding arrangements forward to the certification stage—helping parties avoid later disputes.

If boosted to work more effectively, the CAT could deter between £12.1bn and £24.2bn of rip-off prices and other harms to consumers and small businesses annually, it finds, equivalent to up to £840 per household.

However, the report, which uses data from litigation analytics platform Solomonic, notes the number of cases has declined from 17 in 2023 to only three filed in the first nine months of 2025. It highlights years of delays in cases, which it attributes to procedural complexities, strategic litigation by defendants, and the PACCAR Supreme Court decision which has stalled litigation funding.

Genevieve Quierin, partner at Stephenson Harwood, said: ‘The regime stands at a critical juncture, facing challenges that undermine its ability to operate effectively.

‘Rather than restrict, we need to nurture the system.’

In his foreword to the report, former CAT president Sir Gerald Barling says that he hopes the government, which is currently considering a review of the regime, will not curtail or remove the ‘only means by which multiple claimants—each suffering relatively small amounts of financial loss—can achieve justice’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll