header-logo header-logo

25 July 2025
Issue: 8126 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 25 July 2025

Competition

Christine Riefa Class Representative Ltd v Apple Inc and others [2025] CAT 34

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled on costs following its earlier decision to refuse an application by Christine Riefa Class Representative Ltd (the PCR) for a collective proceedings order in a case involving multiple proposed defendants from the Apple and Amazon groups. The CAT determined that Apple and Amazon, being successful in their defence, are entitled to recover reasonable costs linked to the unsuccessful certification application by the PCR. The CAT also held that Amazon was required to remit reasonable costs incurred by the PCR in responding to Amazon’s unsuccessful disclosure application. The CAT ruled that costs incurred in preparing substantive defences, utilised for the certification application, should be recoverable and not reserved for potential future proceedings. The CAT adjusted solicitor and expert fees to align them with proportionality and guideline hourly rates, awarding interim payments on account of costs at 65% of the revised total costs claimed by the respective parties.


Conflict of laws

Al

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

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll