UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
to distinguish between “pure funders” (who personally have no interest in the litigation and do not stand to benefit from it) and professional funders. The court in Arkin held that costs orders would not be made against pure funders but may be made against profes - sional funders to the extent of the funding provided. Offers to settle Offers to settle can also be made under CPR Part 36, which may have certain costs consequences. By way of example, a defendant can make a CPR Part 36 offer and – if the claimant accepts – that ends the litigation. However, if the claimant rejects the offer and succeeds at trial but is awarded less at trial than the amount of the offer, the claimant will generally have to pay the defendant’s costs from the 21st day of the offer. A claimant can also make an offer under CPR Part 36. If the defendant refuses the offer and the claimant recovers more at trial, the court can order the defendant to pay a 10% uplift on that sum and interest on all or part of the sum recovered. CAT Factors determining costs CAT Rule 104 provides that the CAT may, at its dis - cretion, make any order it considers fit in relation to the payment of costs. In contrast to the provisions in relation to the High Court, in the CAT there is no gen - eral rule that costs follow the event. However, the CAT Rules 2015 provide a number of factors that the CAT may take into account when determining the amount of costs. These factors are set out in CAT Rule 104 (4) and include: • the conduct of all parties in relation to the proceed - ings; • any schedule of incurred or estimated costs filed by the parties; • whether a party has succeeded in part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; • any admissible offer to settle that is drawn to the CAT’s attention and that is not a settlement offer to which cost consequences apply; • whether costs were proportionately and reasonably incurred; and • whether costs are proportionate and reasonable in amount.
The CAT’s general approach is that the successful par - ty should be awarded its costs as a starting point ( Dwr Cymru ) – although a balance must be struck between not undermining the effectiveness of the competition regime and ensuring a just result for both parties ( CMA v Flynn Pharma (2020) UKSC 12). Offers to settle The CAT Rules also include cost consequences for accepting or rejecting a settlement offer, similar to CPR Part 36 in the High Court. Under the CAT Rules, an offer to settle is a “Rule 45 Offer”. Costs orders CAT Rule 57 (1)(d) provides that, if a party fails to com - ply with a direction, the CAT may order that party (or its representative) to pay costs as it 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.
12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal
Judgments of the CAT and the High Court may be appealed to the court of appeal with permission from the lower court or the court of appeal. Appeals are typically permitted only on points of law, brought by a party or someone with sufficient interest. A further appeal to the Supreme Court is possible with permis - sion from the court of appeal or the Supreme Court.
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
2026 has seen further key developments in CAT col - lective action proceedings, alongside continued evo - lution in funding and the wider policy landscape, as follows. • Certification – the trend towards greater scrutiny of certification applications, which began with first three refusals in 2025, has continued. Please
234 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook