header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016 / Simon Duncan
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Features , Banking
printer mail-detail

The hungry CAT fallacy

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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