header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 25 July 2025

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll