UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
• whether the claim is in the CAT or the High Court; • whether it is standalone or follow-on; • when it is issued; and • when the infringement occurred. At first instance in the MIF Umbrella and Merricks pro - ceedings (2023) CAT 49, the claimants argued that a post-Brexit ECJ decision (Case C-267/20, Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v RM , EU:C:2022:494) meant limi - tation periods for competition law infringement dam - ages claims could not begin to run until: • the infringement ceased; and • the injured party knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, that it had suffered harm as a result and the identity of the perpetrator – poten - tially extending significantly the two-year limitation period that currently applies in the CAT to stan - dalone claims commenced after 1 October 2015, for damages suffered prior to 9 March 2017. The CAT rejected the claimants’ analysis of the ECJ judgment’s effect and held it was in any event not bound to follow the decision post-Brexit. The court of appeal upheld the CAT’s judgment in December 2024 ((2024) EWCA Civ 1559), confirming that a cessation requirement is not part of English law for limitation periods to start. In Lundbeck v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (2025) EWCA Civ 677, the court of appeal clari - fied the limitation rules where a claim is issued in the High Court but transferred to the CAT. A standalone Article 101 damages claim was transferred by way of a consent order, preserving accrued rights (including as to limitation). This was important because the High Court claim had been filed out of time. The court of appeal held that, once transferred, the proceedings became CAT proceedings subject to the CAT’s limita - tion rules (more generous in the circumstances of this claim), even though the High Court proceedings were time-barred. In Mr Justin Gutmann v Vodafone Limited and others (2025) CAT 77, the CAT confirmed that Rule 119 (2) of the CAT Rules 2015 applies to standalone claims arising before 1 October 2015, rejecting the pro -
posed class representative (PCR)’s case that the more favourable six-year period under domestic limitation legislation should apply as default. The judgment has clarified that both follow-on and standalone claims arising before 1 October 2015 are subject to the two- year limitation period in Rule 31 (2) of the 2003 CAT Rules. Accordingly, the collective proceedings claim form filed on 28 November 2023 was out of time in respect of the pre-1 October 2015 period of Gut - mann’s claim (as the last date for bringing a claim in respect of this period was 1 October 2017). Collective Actions There have also been important developments in col - lective action proceedings before the CAT. Certification The certification process for collective proceedings has been heavily litigated since the regime was intro - duced in 2015. Under Section 47B of the CA 1998 (as amended by the CRA 2015), collective proceed - ings may only proceed if the CAT makes a collective proceedings order (CPO). Since the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in Wal- ter Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors (2020) UKSC 51, the bar to certification has gener - ally been considered relatively low, with most cases certified. Recently, however, there appears to be a trend towards greater scrutiny – particularly following Evans v Barclays Bank Plc and Others (2025) UKSC 48 (“ Evans ”), which held that claim strength and the prac - ticability of opt-in proceedings are relevant and can be decisive, when the CAT decides whether to certify. There have been several recent cases where a CPO has not been made, as follows. • In Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc & Others (2025) CAT 5, the CAT refused certification because the PCR did not satisfy the Rule 78 (1) authorisation conditions. Following cross-examination, the CAT was concerned that the PCR had acceded to the funder’s request to keep the terms of its funding confidential – includ - ing from class members – and lacked sufficient understanding of the funding agreements.
220 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook