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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

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