UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
In February 2025, the CAT approved the largest collec - tive settlement to date, in the action against Master - card brought by Walter Merricks. The claimants origi - nally sought approximately GBP20 billion (including interest) but the claim had faced hurdles on limitation, causation and pass-on that narrowed its scope signifi - cantly, before a settlement was reached in December 2024. The litigation funder objected to the settlement, arguing that the sum was too low, but the CAT found it just and reasonable. In May 2025, the CAT approved the proposed distribution of the GBP200 million: • GBP100 million ring-fenced for class members; • GBP46 million ring-fenced as a minimum return to the funder (roughly its expenditure); and • part of the balance to the funder as profit, the rest to charity. The High Court later dismissed Innsworth’s challenge to that distribution plan (R (on the application of Inns- worth Capital Limited v The Competition Appeal Tri- bunal (2026) EWHC 1393 (Admin)), finding that the CAT had acted within its “wide powers” as an expert tribunal. In Consumers ’ Association v Qualcomm Incorporat- ed (2026) CAT 50, the CAT approved the first “drop hands” settlement of UK opt-out collective proceed - ings – involving no financial compensation to the esti - mated 29 million class members (following trial). Subject to CAT approval, settlement has also been provisionally agreed in Barry Rodger v Google . Rodger initially sought GBP1 billion on behalf of UK devel - opers selling apps on Google’s Play Store, but has agreed to settle for GBP260 million, with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Google. The settlement hearing is listed before the CAT in September 2026. Funding Following the Supreme Court’s judgment on 26 July 2023 in PACCAR Inc and Ors v Road Haulage Asso - ciation Limited and UK Claims Limited (2023) UKSC 28 (“ PACCAR ”), LFAs where the funder’s return is a share of damages awarded are categorised as DBAs, which are unenforceable unless they meet applicable requirements, such as capping the funder’s share at 50% and being on a no win no fee basis. Most LFAs
have been updated to work around this ruling (eg, by recovering a multiple of the funds committed). For further information, see 11.1 Litigatoin Funding . In March 2024, the UK government announced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, seeking to reverse PACCAR . A 2025 Civil Justice Council report recommended urgent legislation, which the Ministry of Justice accepted, but no bill has been enacted yet. Subsidy Control The Subsidy Control Act (SCA) 2022 extended the CAT’s jurisdiction to include challenges brought by interested parties against a public authority’s decision to grant a subsidy. The CAT has handed down several substantive judg - ments under this jurisdiction – all in favour of the pub - lic authority. In Mr Aubrey Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2025) CAT 41 and The New Lot- tery Company Ltd and Others v The Gambling Com - mission (2026) CAT 14, the CAT held that no subsidy had in fact been conferred, applying the commercial market operator principle under Section 3 (2) of the SCA by reference to EU state aid case law. Even where a measure is accepted to be a subsidy, the CAT confirmed in Bristol Airport Ltd v Welsh Ministers (2026) CAT 30 that challengers face a high threshold to show a public authority’s assessment was unlawful, applying conventional judicial review standards. No subsidy decision has been quashed yet, suggest - ing authorities acting within a reasonable range of judgment are likely to withstand challenge. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis Claims for damages arising from a breach of UK or EU competition law can be brought in the High Court (either in the Chancery Division or the Commercial Court) or before the CAT. In the High Court, claims are based on the tort of breach of statutory duty of Chap - ters I/II of the CA 1998 and/or – for conduct occurring
222 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook