header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 March 2016 / Simon Duncan
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Features , Banking
printer mail-detail

The hungry CAT fallacy

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
001_nlj_7689_duncan

Simon Duncan reports on class actions in the UK & LIBOR/FX claims

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced a private right for consumers to bring proceedings attacking anti-competitive practices by businesses, such as price fixing. This has been effective since 1 October 2015. Will the new law encourage more class actions to be brought against banks for LIBOR and FX price fixing?

Under the pre-existing regime only a “specified body” could bring a claim to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) and that claim restricted to goods or services received outside of the claimants’ business. Only one claim was brought in 12 years, it was The Consumers Association v JJB Sports PLC [2009] CAT 3. In that case Which? (the specified body) sought to recover losses suffered by victims of a replica football kit cartel. Only 130 claimants opted in, a fraction of those affected. Each claimant received compensation but the legal costs significantly outweighed this. Which? then stated that it would not bring any more claims.

New regime

The new regime includes any

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll