The CAT gave the guidance while approving two collective actions against Amazon worth nearly £4bn in total. It made instructing independent costs specialists a condition of that approval, adding that this should become the ‘standard approach in collective proceedings’, in Robert Hammond v Amazon.com, Inc & Others; Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.com Inc & Others [2025] CAT 42, handed down last week.
Both class representatives, Stephan and Hammond, committed to having a costs professional review their future interim invoices.
David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘Class representatives are understandably heavily reliant on their lawyers in cases as big and complex as these, but with so much money on the line, the tribunal recognised the importance of them having independent advice to ensure that their costs—which ultimately come out of the class’s damages in the event of success—are rigorously policed.
‘Costs lawyers are the people to do this.’
Stephan is bringing a £2.7bn opt-out claim, arguing Amazon abused its dominant position when supplying marketplace services to third-party sellers. The funder is providing backing of up to £33m. Hammond’s £1bn claim, which has a litigation budget of £20m, alleges Amazon used its ‘Buy Box’ to suppress competition. Amazon disputes the allegations.
The CAT panel, chaired by Mr Justice Roth, noted Stephan’s funding agreement provided he would ‘review’ invoices and, at the reasonable request of the funder, seek to have them assessed.
‘We recognise that these provisions provide some protection against unreasonable fees,’ it said. ‘However, we think it is important that [Stephan], independently, should be in a position to subject claims for costs to proper scrutiny. The funder’s interests are not identical to those of the class because, if the action results in recovery for the class, the funder’s expenditure on costs will be reimbursed out of the sum recovered, potentially at the expense of the class.’
The CAT said it was similarly ‘concerned that there should be effective control of costs’ in Hammond’s case.
