UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Oliver Carroll and Bethany Downey, Clifford Chance LLP
October 2015, when brought in the CAT and relate to standalone competition claims. If the claimants were correct, this would mean the limitation period could not begin to run until the infringement of competition law ceased and the injured party could be reasonably expected to know the fact it suffered harm and the identity of the perpetrator, potentially extending the limitation period significantly. The claimants argued that the CAT was bound to follow this decision despite it being post-Brexit. The CAT disagreed with the claim - ants’ analysis as to the effect of the CJEU’s judgment and also found that, in any event, the CAT was not bound to follow the decision post-Brexit. The Court of Appeal recently upheld the CAT’s judg - ment in December 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 1559), confirming that a so-called cessation requirement is not part of English law for limitation periods to start, providing clarity that the limitation periods in English law have not been revised. Collective Actions There have also been a number of important devel - opments in collective action proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Key developments have included the following. Certification The certification process for collective proceedings brought in the CAT has been heavily litigated. Under Section 47B of the CA 1998 (as amended by the CRA 2015), any collective proceedings may only proceed if the CAT makes a collective proceedings order. Since the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in Walter Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2020] UKSC 51, the bar to certification has generally been considered to be relatively low, with the vast majority of cases being certified. However, there have been two recent instances where a collective proceedings order has not been made and thus showing the Tribu - nal acting as a more active gatekeeper. The first was in the case Christine Riefa Class Rep- resentative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others [2025] CAT 5, where the Competition Appeal Tribunal refused the application for certification on the basis that the Tribunal did not consider that the Proposed Class
Representative (PCR) satisfied the authorisation con - ditions to be a Class Representative. A PCR must demonstrate that they are capable of acting fairly and adequately in the interests of class members in order to fulfil the requirements of Rule 78 (1), and a failure to do so may be fatal for the certification of a CPO application. The Tribunal concerns included that the PCR had acceded to the funder’s request to keep the terms of its funding confidential, including from the class members whose interests she was supposed to be representing, and that she did not have a sufficient understanding of the funding agreements. The second failed application was in a case brought against six water and sewerage companies [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. Judgments In December 2024, the first liability judgment in collec - tive proceedings was handed down 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 competition law (and thus no damages were awarded). The case does raise interesting points regarding how the CAT would have assessed dam - ages if liability had been found, where it indicated that, had BT’s prices been found to be unfair, the relevant “but for” comparison would have been with the com - petitive benchmark rather than allowing for flexibility in pricing above costs plus. However, these comments were obiter given BT had not breached competition law. 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. Settlements Under the collective proceedings regime in the Com - petition Appeal Tribunal, any opt-out settlements must be judicially approved. The Tribunal may approve the settlement only if it is satisfied that its terms are just and reasonable.
266 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook