header-logo header-logo

28 November 2024
Issue: 8097 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions , ESG , Competition , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Public now view litigation as a means to drive ethical behaviour

Attitudes to class actions are shifting among the general public and business leaders, research shows.

A report published by Portland this week, based on a poll of 2,000 people and 540 UK business leaders, found a growing majority of the public have a positive view of class actions as a way to win compensation, improve corporate behaviour and hold companies accountable for their actions. Some 65% of respondents would sign up to a class action and 57% believe class actions ‘often’ win compensation for claimants (up from 44% who held this view in 2023). Half of the respondents agreed class actions drive improvements in corporate behaviour.

However, the report, ‘Reputation and accountability: class actions, ESG and values-driven litigation’, also detected low public awareness of people’s eligibility to claim compensation in high-profile actions. Only 22% of the public knew they could claim compensation in Competition Appeal Tribunal claims, despite several high-stakes cases in recent years.

Among business leaders polled, more than three-quarters (77%) agreed directors have a duty to mitigate their company’s climate risks and two-thirds supported legal action to hold governments to account for climate breaches. Some 72% supported the use of litigation against companies accused of human rights in their supply chains, and more than two-thirds believe the increase in group litigation will improve corporate behaviour.

Simon Pugh, head of Portland’s litigation and disputes practice, said: ‘The data shows some really big shifts.

‘For the first time ever, our data provides real insight into how litigation with a moral and ethical purpose is being perceived by business leaders. Businesses need to adapt to these legal risks posed by a rapidly evolving legal environment; especially as new regulation takes hold.

‘But they must also be alive to the mood of the public on these issues. Companies who find themselves involved in litigation will find the risk to their reputation presents more challenges than just uncomfortable headlines.’

Issue: 8097 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions , ESG , Competition , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll