header-logo header-logo

22 July 2026
Issue: 8171 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition
printer mail-detail

Funding for opt-out claims under consultation

Damages-based agreements (DBAs), also known as contingency fees, could be allowed for opt-out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal

The government consultation, ‘Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement’, launched last week and due to close on 25 September, aims to make opt-out collective actions faster and easier. It builds on responses to a call for evidence last autumn.

The government noted feedback that the current reliance on litigation funders makes the regime ‘vulnerable’, particularly in light of the PACCAR litigation, which created ambiguity about the enforceability of litigation funding agreements. It stated: ‘An increase in options for funding claims could increase competition and therefore drive down the cost of litigation finance, mitigating the risk of a justice gap and increasing the resilience of the regime.’

Other proposals include costs sanctions for unreasonable behaviour and delivery of the funder’s return at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll