header-logo header-logo

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Collective actions at ‘critical juncture’

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll