UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
Judgments Since the first liability judgment in collective proceed - ings in 2024 ( Le Patourel v BT [2024] CAT 76), two fur - ther final merits judgments have been handed down by the CAT. In Justin Gutmann v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited and Others [2025] CAT 64, the CAT dismissed all allegations against the train operators, whilst Dr Rachael Kent v Apple Inc and Apple Distribu- tion International Ltd [2025] CAT 67 was the first final merits judgment won by a class representative under the class action regime, with the CAT awarding aggre - gate class-wide damages of around GBP1.5 billion including interest. A further judgment from the CAT is pending, following the hearing of Alex Neill Class Rep- resentative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited and Others in early 2026. Settlements Under the collective proceedings regime in the Com - petition Appeal Tribunal, any opt-out settlements must be judicially approved. The CAT may approve the set - tlement only if it is satisfied that its terms are just and reasonable. In December 2024, a settlement agreement was reached in Merricks , in the region of GBP200 million. The CAT approved the settlement in February 2025, and ruled against objections raised by the litigation funder, Innsworth. The CAT subsequently ruled on the proposed distribution, approving the proposal of Mr Merricks and Mastercard that: (i) GBP100 million would be ring-fenced for class members; (ii) GBP46 million would be ring-fenced as a minimum return to the funder (roughly equating to its actual expenditure); and (iii) a portion of the balance, depending on class take-up would go to the funder as profit, with the rest paid to charity. The judgment of the High Court earlier this year ( R ( on the application of Innsworth Capital Limited ) v The Competition Appeal Tribunal [2026] EWHC 1393 (Admin)) dismissed Innsworth’s challenge to the CAT’s distribution plan, finding that the CAT had acted within its “wide powers” as an expert specialist tribunal when deciding the just and reasonable return for the funder. 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. Subject to approval of the CAT, settlement has also been provisionally agreed between the parties in Barry Rodger v Google . Rodger initially sought GBP1 billion in compensation on behalf of developers who sold apps on Google’s Play Store in the United Kingdom, but has agreed to settle the claim for GBP260 mil - lion with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Google. The proposed settlement hearing will take place 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, litigation funding agreements (LFAs), in which the funder’s return is a share of damages ultimate - ly awarded to the claimant, are now categorised as damages-based agreements (DBAs), which are not enforceable if they do not meet the requirements set out in the applicable regulations, such as capping the share of winnings at 50% and being on a no win, no fee basis. Most LFAs have now been updated to work around this ruling, with provisions such as recovering a multiple of the funds committed being applied. In March 2024, the UK government announced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which sought to reverse the decision of the judgment on third-party litigation funding ( R (on the applica- tion of PACCAR Inc ) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28). A Report by the Civil Justice Coun - cil in 2025 advised that legislation should be urgently introduced and the Ministry of Justice accepted the recommendations of the Report. No bill has yet been enacted. Under the collective actions regime, the CAT has become increasing willing to scrutinise the structure and adequacy of funding arrangements in place at the certification stage when assessing the suitability of a class representative – eg, in Consumers ’ Associa- tion ( Which ?) v Apple Inc & Ors [2026] CAT 29, where the CAT assessed the robustness of the LFA as part of its overall certification considerations. Even once certified, the CAT has scrutinised funding arrange -
239 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook