header-logo header-logo

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Collective actions at ‘critical juncture’

The opt-out collective actions regime is facing ‘significant challenges’ but could benefit the UK by £24bn a year if enhanced and expanded, a report by Stephenson Harwood has found

The firm’s report, ‘Realising the benefits of competitive markets’, calls for opt-out cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to be extended to cover data privacy breaches, consumer protection violations and other mass harms as well as competition law breaches. It recommends introducing pre-action protocols and improving early case management, including costs budgeting and stricter timetabling to keep budgets under control in complex cases, and reversing the effects of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision to encourage funders to invest.

It recommends the CAT bring approval of funding arrangements forward to the certification stage—helping parties avoid later disputes.

If boosted to work more effectively, the CAT could deter between £12.1bn and £24.2bn of rip-off prices and other harms to consumers and small businesses annually, it finds, equivalent to up to £840 per household.

However, the report, which uses data from litigation analytics platform Solomonic, notes the number of cases has declined from 17 in 2023 to only three filed in the first nine months of 2025. It highlights years of delays in cases, which it attributes to procedural complexities, strategic litigation by defendants, and the PACCAR Supreme Court decision which has stalled litigation funding.

Genevieve Quierin, partner at Stephenson Harwood, said: ‘The regime stands at a critical juncture, facing challenges that undermine its ability to operate effectively.

‘Rather than restrict, we need to nurture the system.’

In his foreword to the report, former CAT president Sir Gerald Barling says that he hopes the government, which is currently considering a review of the regime, will not curtail or remove the ‘only means by which multiple claimants—each suffering relatively small amounts of financial loss—can achieve justice’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll