header-logo header-logo

First post-PACCAR case launches as MPs debate amendment

29 November 2023
Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Competition
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have urged parliament to clear up the confusion over litigation funding in group action cases arising from PACCAR

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, suggests litigation funding, which is linked to a return based on a percentage of damages, is a damages-based agreement therefore not permitted in opt-out collective actions.

PACCAR could be reversed through an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill, which passed its third reading stage in the Commons last week. This would provide a statutory basis for litigation funding in opt-out proceedings.

Members of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), gathering for their autumn conference last week, welcomed the amendment but called on MPs to go further: review the whole collective action regime, boost consumer rights and ensure consumers can pursue claims against unscrupulous organisations.

CORLA co-president David Greene said: ‘Consumers need much more certainty as to process and financing to ensure access to justice and the enforcement of their rights.’

CORLA co-President Martyn Day said: ‘The Competition Appeal Tribunal continues to ensure the opt out process in competition claims works as best as possible.

‘But there is no reason why the opt out process should apply simply to competition claims. We want to see a much wider ability for consumers to get together to pursue their rights.’

Last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal certified its first post-PACCAR claim, a £5bn claim against Sony Playstation, in Alex Neill proposed class representative v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe & Ors [2023] CAT 73.

Following PACCAR, the class representative entered into an amended litigation funding agreement. The tribunal accepted this, noting in its judgment that the words ‘only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law’, inserted into the amended agreement have no legal effect until the contingency (legislation to reverse PACCAR) eventuates.

Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Competition
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

Maria Karaiskos KC, recently appointed as the first female head of Church Court Chambers, discusses breaking down barriers, the lure of the courtroom, and the power of storytelling

Cripps—Simon Main

Cripps—Simon Main

Firm strengthens residential property team with partner hire

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Private wealth disputes team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
In a very special tribute in this week's NLJ, David Burrows reflects on the retirement of Patrick Allen, co-founder of Hodge Jones & Allen, whose career epitomised the heyday of legal aid
Michael Zander KC, Emeritus Professor at LSE, tracks the turbulent passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill through the House of Lords in this week's issue of NLJ. Two marathon debates drew contributions from nearly 200 peers, split between support, opposition and conditional approval
Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers reflects on the Human Rights Act 1998 a quarter-century after it came into force, in this week's issue of NLJ
In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ, Stephen Gold surveys a raft of procedural changes and quirky disputes shaping civil practice. His message is clear: civil practitioners must brace for continual tweaks, unexpected contentions and rising costs in everyday litigation
Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar 2025 and joint head of chambers at 4PB, sets out in this week's NLJ how the profession will respond to Baroness Harriet Harman KC’s review into bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct at the Bar
back-to-top-scroll