header-logo header-logo

06 March 2026
Issue: 8152 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 6 March 2026

Competition

Stephan v Amazon.Com, Inc and others [2026] EWCA Civ 183

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in both applications challenging decisions of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to make two collective proceedings orders (CPOs) under s 47B of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998). The defendants, Amazon, sought permission to appeal CPOs granted to Robert Hammond on behalf of a class of consumers and to Professor Andreas Stephan on behalf of third-party sellers. Both claims alleged abuse of dominant position contrary to the Chapter II prohibition in s 18, CA 1998 and Art 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In Mr Hammond’s case, Amazon challenged the CAT’s approach to the suitability of the class representative’s funding arrangements at certification stage, contending that the potential return to the funder was ‘wholly unreasonable’. The court held there was no arguable error of law; the CAT had not applied a default rule deferring consideration of funding reasonableness but exercised proper discretion, taking into account relevant factors.

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

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