UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Oliver Carroll and Bethany Downey, Clifford Chance LLP
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
• whether costs are proportionate and reasonable in amount. The general approach in the CAT is that the appropri - ate starting point is that the successful party should be awarded its costs ( Albion Water v Dwr Cymru Cyfnge- dig [2013] CAT 16). However, the CAT acknowledges that a balance must be struck between ensuring that costs awards do not undermine the effectiveness of the competition regime whilst ensuring a just result for both parties ( CMA v Flynn Pharma [2020] UKSC 12). Offers to settle The CAT Rules also include specific cost consequenc - es relating to the acceptance or rejection of a settle - ment offer that are similar to those applicable in the High Court under the rules on offers to settle in CPR Part 36. Under the CAT Rules, an offer to settle is labelled a “Rule 45 Offer”. Costs orders In addition, CAT Rule 57 (1)(d) states that if any party fails to comply with any direction, the CAT may order that the party (or its representative) be subject to an order for costs as the CAT sees fit. In June 2016, in Socrates Trading Limited v The Law Society of England and Wales , the CAT decided to exercise its powers under Rule 58 (2)(b) to cap the level of recoverable costs in the case. Judgments of the CAT and the High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, provided the per - mission of the lower court or the Court of Appeal has been obtained. Appeals are typically only permitted on points of law. They can be made either by a party to the proceedings or by someone who has sufficient interest in the matter. A further appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court is possible, again provided permission is granted either by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. 12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal
This year there have been a number of key devel - opments in collective action proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Key developments are outlined below. • Certification: In 2025 the Tribunal issued the first three judgments refusing certification of collective proceedings. The first of these was in the case of • Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others [2025] CAT 5, where the Com - petition Appeal Tribunal refused the application for certification on the basis that the Tribunal did not consider the Proposed Class Representative (PCR) satisfied the authorisation conditions to be a Class Representative. The second was in a case brought against six water and sewerage undertakers [2025] CAT 17, where the Tribunal rejected the claim as it relied on alleged infringements of a statutory regime to which the only remedy was by way of an enforcement order by the UK’s water regulator. The third was i • n Rowntree v Performing Right Society Limited and PRS [2025] CAT 49 on grounds including that there was not a credible methodology to assess dam - ages. • First Liability Judgment: December 2024 saw the first liability judgment in collective proceedings in the • Le Patourel judgment [2024] CAT 76. The CAT found that, while BT was dominant in the relevant market of standalone fixed voice services and its prices were excessive, the prices charged were not unfair. As a result, BT had not breached com - petition law and no damages were awarded. The claimants were refused permission to appeal from the CAT [2025] CAT 10 and, in July 2025, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. • Merricks Settlement: In February 2025, the CAT gave an oral ruling approving the largest proposed settlement of a collective action so far in the col - lective action brought against Mastercard by Mer - ricks. The claimants originally sought damages of GBP14 billion plus interest, bringing it to just under GBP20 billion claimed. The claim faced a number
260 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook