header-logo header-logo

CAT advice when calculating costs

30 July 2025
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition
printer mail-detail
People bringing collective actions should always instruct costs specialists to help them scrutinise their lawyers’ fees, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has declared

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.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll