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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll