Collective or Class Actions and Claims Aggregation in the United Kingdom

Introduction

The United Kingdom has long been a forum of choice for private enforcement of competition law, collectively or otherwise, [2] and claimants seeking to bring collective actions (that is joint claims by parties that are not related) in the United Kingdom [3] have had a number of possible procedural routes available to them. Where a number of unrelated claimants have similar claims, the possible routes for collective action range from: ‘informal’ claims aggregation (by simply naming multiple claimants on a standard claim form) and joint case management of similar cases; through to more formal routes such as representative actions, group litigation orders (GLOs) pursuant to Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the recently introduced competition collective proceedings regime.

Before 2003, in cases involving large numbers of claimants who had each suffered a relatively small loss as a result of a competition law breach, the more formal routes of representative actions and GLOs were considered unsuitable or unpopular in practice. To address this, a specific method for collective redress for damage caused by competition law breaches was first introduced in 2003. Initially, the regime allowed a consumer representative organisation designated by the Secretary of State to bring ‘follow-on’ [4] damages claims in competition cases on behalf of consumers (on an ‘opt-in’ basis [5] only). However, just one case was brought under this very narrow regime (the case settled, with costs understood to have far outweighed the ultimate settlement). More recently, on 1 October 2015 the scope of the competition collective actions regime was dramatically expanded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The new regime allows collective claims to be brought by businesses as well as consumers, in stand-alone [6] as well as follow-on cases, and – following much debate – on an ‘opt-out’ basis [7] as well as an ‘opt-in’ basis. The regime thus heralds a step-change in collective enforcement of competition law in the UK.

At the time of writing, seven applications for a collective proceedings order (CPO) have been made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) under the new regime. While none of these has yet successfully obtained certification (six are pending determination), the sense of momentum behind the new regime is increasing.

This chapter considers the current trends in collective or class actions and claims aggregation in the UK, and highlights some of the key issues that have arisen in recent cases. While much of the focus is on the new opt-out collective actions regime before the CAT, it also considers trends and key issues arising in claims brought by multiple claimants via the other routes mentioned above, namely representative actions, GLOs, and informal claims aggregation and joint case management before both the High Court and the CAT. [8] Finally, this chapter briefly touches on the issue of settlement, which has its own dynamics in the context of collective claims, whichever of the procedural routes is originally followed when bringing the claim.

Competition collective actions before the CAT

Overview

A competition law-specific collective procedure was first introduced in the UK with effect from 20 June 2003, by way of the former Section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98). [9] This allowed bodies designated by the Secretary of State to bring follow-on competition law claims on behalf of consumers in the specialist CAT, on an opt-in basis. However, between 2003 and 2015, this procedure was used only once, in a claim brought by the Consumers’ Association, Which?, in relation to overcharging for football shirts. [10] In that case, only 130 claimants opted in, which was less than 1 per cent of those estimated to have been affected by the competition infringement in question, and the case ultimately settled. Which? – the sole body then designated to bring claims on behalf of consumers – indicated that it would not bring another claim so long as the mechanism remained opt-in in nature, [11] and the procedure was widely perceived as a failure.

A new lease of life was given by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as part of a far-reaching overhaul of the competition law private actions regime in the UK. With effect from 1 October 2015, Section 47B CA98 was amended [12] to be much broader in scope: collective claims can now be brought by businesses as well as consumers, in stand-alone as well as follow-on cases, and – most significantly – on an opt-out basis as well as an opt-in basis. The class representative is no longer limited to designated organisations; it can be either a class member or a representative individual or body, subject to authorisation from the CAT.

The gateway to bringing collective proceedings pursuant to Section 47B is an application to the CAT for a CPO. The CAT must then review the application and decide whether to certify the claim and allow it to proceed. Section 47B CA98 together with Rules 78 and 79 of the CAT Rules 2015 [13] set out the procedural regime for the granting of a CPO. The high-level requirements are that:

  • the claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law and are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings; [14] and
  • the CAT considers that it is just and reasonable for the proposed class representative to act as the representative in the proceedings. [15]

The new regime got off to a slow start: between October 2015 and September 2016 there were only two CPO applications, and both were effectively rejected by the CAT at the certification stage. [16] However, there are signs of increasing momentum within the new regime, with five further CPO applications having been lodged in the past 16 months, four of which are seeking certification on an opt-out basis. [17] Moreover, the CAT’s rejection of the second CPO application, in Merricks v. Mastercard, [18] was overturned on appeal, and a less restrictive approach was taken by the Court of Appeal to the question of certification in the Mastercard case, which seems likely to encourage more claims to be brought in the future (subject to the outcome of the pending appeal in that case to the Supreme Court).

Against that background, this section highlights the key issues and trends from the CPO applications made to date. We touch on the types of cases in which CPOs have been sought, the approach taken by the CAT and the Court of Appeal to the eligibility of the claims for inclusion in collective proceedings, and the suitability of the proposed class representative. We also briefly consider the extent of the right of appeal against CAT decisions on the issue of certification.

Types of cases in which CPO applications have been made

The seven CPO applications that have been made to date suggest that this mechanism will – as intended at the time of its introduction – be used in a broad range of cases, involving both consumer and business claimants covering a range of alleged competition law infringements and on both a stand-alone and follow-on basis.

All but one of the CPO applications made to the CAT so far have sought certification to proceed on an opt-out basis. [19] This is unsurprising, and it is expected that this trend will continue, particularly for claims where the loss suffered by each individual claimant is relatively small, and the costs of bringing the action are being covered either partly or wholly by third-party litigation funding.

Another unsurprising trend is that the majority of cases have involved (although they may not be limited to) follow-on claims, namely, they are based on an underlying infringement decision by the UK or EU competition authorities. In follow-on claims, there is no need to prove the existence of the infringement; instead, the claimant only has to show that the infringement caused them loss and the amount of that loss. However, it is notable that two CPO applications have also recently been made on a stand-alone basis, in respect of alleged illegal overcharges paid by millions of rail passengers for rail travel to or from the outer boundaries of Transport for London’s fare zones. [20] These cases are also the first CPO applications to involve an alleged abuse of dominance and not an infringement of the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements. [21]

The claims brought to date have involved a roughly equal split between claims brought on behalf of consumers and those brought on behalf of businesses. [22] It is particularly interesting to note that the latter claims also involve potentially large businesses as well as smaller businesses: for example, in the notice of application published in respect of the opt-out action lodged in July 2019 in respect of the European Commission’s Forex infringement decisions, [23] the proposed definition of the class of claimants is stated to be ‘intended to capture all the varieties of “main customers” of FX traders referred to in the Commission’s press release of 16 May 2019, . . . namely asset managers, pension funds, hedge funds, major companies and other banks’. That said, larger companies may of course choose to actively opt-out of any collective action and bring their claims directly (either individually or jointly with a smaller number of other similarly affected companies). The ongoing litigation following on from the Trucks and Forex infringements provides a good illustration of this in practice: in addition to the pending CPO applications, a number of larger companies have already initiated follow-on claims separately, both before the CAT and in the High Court (see further the section below on ‘informal’ claims aggregation).

Eligibility of claims

As regards the eligibility of claims to be heard in collective proceedings, this section focuses in particular on the two cases in which certification hearings have taken place and judgments have been given: Gibson v. Pride [24] and Merricks v. Mastercard. [25] By way of brief summary of the factual background and context for those cases:

  • Gibson v. Pride involved an opt-out claim for approximately £3 million brought by Ms Gibson, the General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention (NPC), against a manufacturer and supplier of mobility scooters, on behalf of approximately 30,000 UK purchasers between 1 February 2010 and 29 February 2012. The claim followed on from a decision by the UK Competition and Markets Authority that found that Pride Mobility Products Ltd and eight retailers had infringed competition law by entering into agreements and concerted practices aimed at prohibiting the online advertising of prices for certain models of Pride mobility scooters below Pride’s recommended retail prices (i.e., a form of resale price maintenance). The essence of the claim was that class members had overpaid for mobility scooters as a result of the infringement.
  • Merricks v. Mastercard involves an opt-out claim for £14 billion brought by Mr Merricks (the former Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service) against Mastercard, on behalf of approximately 46 million customers who purchased goods and services from businesses in the UK that accepted Mastercard payment cards between May 1992 and June 2008 (even if the purchase in question was not actually made using a Mastercard). The claim (purportedly) [26] follows on from the European Commission’s infringement decision relating to multi-lateral interchange fees (MIFs) (fees charged between banks in relation to transactions involving the use of a Mastercard card). The essence of the claim is that the MIF overcharge was passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

A number of key principles were established in the rulings in these first two cases. For claims to be eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings, the CAT has to consider that: they raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law; and they are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings. In determining the question of suitability, Rule 79 of the CAT Rules 2015 provides that the CAT may take into account all matters it thinks fit and sets out a non-exhaustive list of potentially relevant factors. These include the size and nature of the class, whether it is possible to determine in respect of any person whether that person is or is not a member of the class, whether the claims are suitable for an aggregate award of damages, and the costs and benefits of continuing the collective proceedings.

Demonstrating sufficient commonality of issues

The requirement of commonality of issues between all of the claims has so far proven to be a major stumbling block in CPO applications heard by the CAT. While the CAT has indicated that it does not require all significant issues to be deemed common issues for a claim to be suitable for a CPO, [27] or for the common issues to predominate over the individual issues, there must still be sufficient commonality to enable the CAT to conclude that the claim is suitable to be brought in collective proceedings. A lack of such commonality was the fundamental reason that the CAT rejected the CPO applications in both Gibson v. Pride and Merricks v. Mastercard.

Difficult questions have arisen as to whether the loss suffered by the claimants can be treated as a ‘common issue’ and established on a class-wide basis, and the degree of precision with which a CPO applicant must be able, at the time of the certification hearing, to calculate a fair approximation of that loss. Establishing sufficient commonality in this regard will generally require the involvement of economic experts to propose a methodology for calculating loss, and this becomes additionally complex where the extent to which an overcharge has been ‘passed on’ to the claimants is also a contested issue.

In Gibson v. Pride, the proposed claimant class included purchasers of any new Pride mobility scooter during the specified period, including both models subject to the online price advertising restrictions identified in the underlying infringement decision and other models, and models purchased in physical stores as well as online (such that four sub-classes of claimant were identified in the CPO application). Ms Gibson argued that a fair approximation of the estimated individual loss on a common basis within the sub-classes of claimants could be calculated, and relied on an expert economist report setting out a proposed methodology for doing so. However, that methodology did not distinguish between the eight retailers identified in the underlying infringement decision and other retailers of Pride mobility scooters. The CAT considered that this was incorrect, given that the claim had been framed solely as a follow-on claim, [28] and as such was limited to the boundaries of the infringement identified in the underlying Office of Fair Trading decision. The alleged losses suffered by the members of the proposed claimant class were so diverse (and, in some cases, outside the scope of the infringement decision from which the claim arose) that the CAT concluded that there was insufficient commonality of issues between each of the individual claims to certify the claim to proceed by way of collective proceedings. The CAT invited Ms Gibson to reformulate her claim and amend the proposed methodology to focus on the effects of the agreements that were the subject of the underlying infringement decision, but the claim was ultimately withdrawn.

In Merricks v. Mastercard, demonstrating commonality of interest between the claims proved problematic before the CAT largely due to difficulties in determining how much of the alleged overcharge had been passed on to each proposed claimant by the relevant retailers: in practice, there was likely to be significant variation in pass-on of the alleged overcharge between different kinds of goods and services and different kinds of retailers. While the CAT accepted that damages could, in principle, be calculated on an aggregate basis using a weighted average pass-on percentage, it concluded that the methodology proposed by Mr Merricks for doing so was inadequate owing to a lack of evidence as to the availability of the data that would be required to apply the proposed methodology on a sufficiently sound basis. In reaching this conclusion, the CAT looked to the judgment of the Canadian Supreme Court in Pro-Sys Consultants v. Microsoft Corporation, [29] which it had previously also considered in Gibson v. Pride. In that case, the Canadian court held that the proposed methodology ‘must offer a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a class-wide basis’, and ‘cannot be purely theoretical or hypothetical, but rather must be grounded in the facts of the particular case in question’. In addition, ‘there must be some evidence of the availability of the data to which the methodology is to be applied’. [30]

The CAT also expressed concern that the proposed distribution of damages envisaged by Mr Merricks would not reflect the governing principle of damages for breach of competition law, being compensatory in nature, as it was not linked to a calculation of individual loss. Section 47C(2) CA98 clearly states that the CAT may make an aggregate award of damages in collective proceedings ‘without undertaking an assessment of the amount of damages recoverable in respect of the claim of each represented person’. Nonetheless, the CAT concluded that the absence of any plausible means of calculating the loss of individual claimants so as to devise an appropriate method of distributing any aggregate award of damages meant that the claims were not suitable for an aggregate award of damages, and therefore should not be permitted to proceed as collective proceedings.

However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion on both these points.

Evidence required to demonstrate that an average pass-on percentage can be calculated

On the issue of the evidence required to demonstrate that an average pass-on percentage could be calculated, and the proposed methodology for doing so, the Court of Appeal approved the reliance on Canadian jurisprudence for guidance (and it therefore seems likely that UK cases will continue to be influenced by the Canadian approach in future). However, with regard to the specific test set out in Pro-Sys Consultants v. Microsoft, the Court of Appeal held that the CAT had applied the test too strictly when it required Mr Merricks to ‘do more than simply show that he has an arguable case on the pleadings, as if, for example, he was facing an application to strike out’. [31] The Court of Appeal emphasised that the ‘realistic prospect of success’ test to be applied at the certification stage should not involve conducting a ‘mini-trial’ (which it considered that the CAT had effectively done). In particular, it held that the CAT had set the bar too high in requiring Mr Merricks to be able to produce the data required to operate the proposed methodology for assessing the level of pass-on to the represented class at the time of the certification hearing, rather than simply demonstrating that the necessary data was, or was likely to be, available for use at the trial. [32]

The (ir)relevance of estimating individual loss

In relation to the proposed distribution of damages, the Court of Appeal held that the CAT had wrongly directed itself that an aggregate damages award had to be distributed on a compensatory basis (i.e., in a way that would bear some relation to the actual loss of individual class members). [33] Rather, ‘the vindication of the rights of individual claimants is achieved by the aggregate award itself’. [34] Moreover, the Court of Appeal considered that it was premature to consider the question of distribution at the certification stage. It held that this should instead be a matter for determination following trial.

Suitability of the proposed class representative

The CAT enjoys a wide degree of discretion when determining the suitability of a proposed class representative. Rule 78 of the CAT Rules provides that the CAT may authorise an applicant to act as the class representative in collective proceedings whether or not the applicant is a class member, provided that it considers that it is ‘just and reasonable’ for the applicant to act as the class representative. [35] In both the CPO applications that have been heard to date, objections were raised as to the proposed class representative, but this issue did not prove to be a significant stumbling block. That said, the suitability of the class representative is likely to remain a bone of contention in future cases, in particular in relation to the representative’s ability to pay the defendant’s costs if the action is unsuccessful.

In Gibson v. Pride, Ms Gibson was not a member of the proposed claimant class. Rather, she was the General Secretary of the NPC, and the majority of the 30,000 class members she sought to represent were pensioners. Pride Mobility objected to her acting as the class representative on general suitability grounds and also on the basis that she would be unable to pay their recoverable costs if ordered to do so. The CAT rejected these objections. It held that there was no reason to think that Ms Gibson would be unable to understand the legal advice given to her, or that (in consultation as appropriate with the National Council or Executive Committee of the NPC) she would not be able to take appropriate decisions about the litigation in the interests of the represented class. Notably, the CAT also expressly commented that it did not regard the fact that the impetus for the collective proceedings came from Ms Gibson’s solicitors as objectionable. On the issue of Ms Gibson’s ability to pay Pride’s recoverable costs if the action was unsuccessful, the CAT noted that Ms Gibson had arranged, through third-party litigation funders, an after-the-event (ATE) insurance policy to cover any liability to pay Pride’s costs up to £1.08 million and her own disbursements in the event that the claim was unsuccessful. It concluded that the question of her ability to pay Pride’s recoverable costs was therefore not a basis for refusing to authorise Ms Gibson to act as class representative at that stage (while noting that this particular aspect of Pride’s objections could be considered further at the renewed application for a CPO, which ultimately never took place).

In Merricks v. Mastercard, Mastercard’s objections in relation to the suitability of the proposed class representative did not relate to Mr Merricks (a qualified solicitor with a long and distinguished career in consumer protection) personally, but to the terms of the funding agreement in place with Burford Capital, a third-party litigation funder that had agreed to make £40 million available to fund the action. The funding agreement provided for the return to be paid out of undistributed proceeds and any costs ordered to be paid by Mastercard to Mr Merricks, equal to the greater of: £135 million; or 30 per cent of undistributed proceeds up to £1 billion plus 20 per cent of undistributed proceeds in excess of £1 billion (total investment return). If the CAT made any ‘negative commentary’ on the contemplated transactions the funder could terminate the agreement. In addition, there was a £10 million limit on the funder’s liability for Mastercard’s costs. In summary, Mastercard raised three objections:

  • the funding agreement would not enable Mr Merricks to fund the litigation or pay Mastercard’s recoverable costs (if so ordered), since it could be terminated by the funder;
  • the £10 million limit on the funder’s liability for Mastercard’s costs was inadequate (and therefore Mr Merricks did not meet the statutory requirement that he ‘will be able to pay the defendant’s recoverable costs if ordered to do so’); and
  • the arrangement gave rise to a conflict of interest.

The CAT rejected these objections, once certain modifications had been made to the funding agreement at the hearing. [36] In particular, in an assessment that will also be of importance for future claims, it concluded that the funder’s return could be paid out of the undistributed proceeds in the event that the claim was successful, on the basis that the concept of ‘costs or expenses’ in Section 47C(6) CA98 covers a liability to pay the charge of a third-party funder.

One further as yet untested question is how the CAT will deal with a scenario where there are two competing class representatives seeking certification of collective proceedings. This is a live issue in the two CPO applications made in respect of the Trucks infringements, where an opt-out application has been made by UK Trucks Claim Ltd and an opt-in application has been made by the Road Haulage Association. These two applications are due to be heard jointly by the CAT. [37] At a case management conference held on 12 December 2018, Roth J made clear that the CAT did not consider there to be anything as a matter of law to prevent two competing CPOs from proceeding where either both applications are made on an opt-in basis or, as in the Trucks cases, one is made on an opt-in basis and one on an opt-out basis. [38]

Right of appeal against CAT decisions on certification

Following the CAT’s decision to refuse certification in Merricks v. Mastercard, the CAT also refused Mr Merricks’ application for permission to appeal against that decision. It considered that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal because there was no provision in the relevant legislation relating to appeals against decisions of the CAT to grant or reject CPOs. [39]

However, Mr Merrick subsequently applied to both the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and the Administrative Court for judicial review. On 13 November 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that there is in fact a right to seek permission to appeal against CAT rulings refusing an application for a CPO, on the basis that such a decision constitutes a decision ‘as to the award of damages’ within the meaning of Section 49(1A) CA98. [40] Giving the unanimous judgment of the court, Patten LJ concluded that ‘a refusal of a CPO is likely to prevent individual members of the represented class who have suffered loss from obtaining any compensation. It is therefore the end of the road for a class action of this kind and, as such, a decision as to the award of s.47C(2) damages. The fact that class members are left with their individual claims is nothing to the point.’ [41]

There is a further right to seek permission to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment on certification to the Supreme Court on questions of law, as illustrated by the grant of permission on 25 July 2019 for Mastercard to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Merricks v. Mastercard to the Supreme Court. [42]

Now that the existence of a statutory right to apply for leave to appeal against CAT decisions to refuse certification of collective proceedings has been established, it seems likely that applications to challenge such decisions will become commonplace in cases where significant amounts of damages are at stake.

Formal aggregation options before the High Court

Representative actions

Rule 19.6 of the CPR permits a representative to bring a claim on behalf of other persons where the representative and the other persons have ‘the same interest’ in the claim. [43] A judgment in a representative action is binding on all persons represented in the claim, notwithstanding that the persons represented in the claim are not named parties. However, the requirement that the representative and all the represented persons have ‘the same interest’ has traditionally been applied narrowly: the class members must all have the same interest in one cause of action, and all seek the same remedy.

In the competition law context, in Emerald Supplies v. British Airways, [44] the Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the English High Court to strike out an attempt by Emerald Supplies to use this form of action to claim damages on behalf of itself and all other direct and indirect purchasers of air cargo services from British Airways allegedly affected by a price-fixing cartel. [45] The Court considered that Emerald Supplies could not satisfactorily identify whether a represented person would qualify for damages (and therefore have ‘the same interest’ in the claim at all stages in the proceedings as other members of the represented class) until a decision was made on the issue of whether or not competition law had been infringed. [46] It also identified an additional difficulty in concluding that the representative and all the represented persons had the same interest in the claim where there was scope for dispute within the class as to whether there was and the extent of passing on (as the claim involved both direct and indirect purchasers). [47] As a result, the claim could not be brought within the scope of the representative action procedure.

Following on from this judgment, we understand that this form of representative action has not been used again in a competition law context for the purpose of bringing a damages claim on behalf of multiple claimants. It remains to be seen whether the more permissive approach recently adopted by the Court of Appeal to the use of representative actions pursuant to Rule 19.6 of the CPR in Lloyd v. Google (in a non-competition law context) ‘re-opens the door’ to the use of this form of collective action for competition claims. [48]

Group litigation order

A less restrictive alternative to the representative action under CPR Rule 19.6 is to bring a claim involving multiple claimants pursuant to a group ligitation order (GLO), a procedure introduced in May 2000, [49] which provides a system of case management for claims based on ‘common or related issues of fact or law’. [50] To conduct proceedings within the GLO case management framework, it is necessary to first obtain court approval in the form of a GLO. [51] All claimants wishing to join the group must then actively opt-in by applying to be entered onto a group register by a date specified by the court. The common or related issues of fact or law are designated ‘GLO issues’, and a judgment in relation to any GLO issue is then binding on all parties to the claims being managed under the GLO. [52]

While GLOs have been made in a broad variety of cases, [53] they have not proven popular for competition claims (although a GLO was suggested as a potential alternative route at first instance in the Emerald Supplies case discussed above). [54] Indeed, the list of GLOs maintained by the UK government indicates that only one GLO has ever been issued in a competition case (Prentice v. Daimler Chrysler), [55] out of 107 GLOs in total. [56]

Informal aggregation and joint case management (High Court and CAT)

In addition to the more formal means of aggregating claims (or certain aspects of claims) in a single set of proceedings, it is also possible simply to name multiple claimants when initiating a competition claim. In the High Court, Rule 7.3 of the CPR allows claimants to take this approach in respect of ‘all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings’. In practice, the CAT also adopts a similar approach for claims initiated in the CAT.

In this way, for example, multiple claimants (whether related or not) can jointly commence an action for damages for infringements of competition law. In addition, even where claims are not initiated jointly, they can be consolidated to be heard jointly, or, more commonly, jointly case-managed, allowing common or similar issues to be heard and dealt with together. In practice these various forms of informal claims aggregation have proven to be a popular way of bringing joint claims or aggregating similar claims.

A further recent trend is increased use of the transfer mechanisms that allow for claims relating to similar underlying facts to move between the High Court and the CAT, paving the way for subsequent joint case management. [57] This recent trend is in contrast with the handling of the interchange fee damages litigation, which led to differing judgments in different first instance courts. [58] Thus, as well as ensuring efficient case management by a specialist tribunal, this approach reflects the courts’ desire to avoid the risk of inconsistent outcomes where multiple claims relating to similar underlying facts are heard in different forums.

It is notable that the popularity of these informal methods of aggregating claims has continued notwithstanding the introduction of the expanded competition-specific collective actions regime. There are a number of reasons for this. Clearly, not all competition damages claims involving (or potentially involving) multiple claimants will be suitable for a CPO, and claimants may not wish to go through the extra hurdle of a CPO in circumstances where this is not essential to the advancing of the claims. In practice, the Section 47B CA98 regime is most suited to claims involving large numbers of consumers or small businesses, [59] that have each suffered a relatively small loss, where it would be unattractive (both in terms of cost and the amount of work involved) to bring an individual claim. Moreover, even where the CPO route is a possibility, larger companies pursuing claims for significant sums may prefer to maintain direct control over the conduct (and potential settlement) of the claim, rather than delegating authority to an independent class representative.

Finally, the expanded competition collective actions regime is still in its infancy, which brings with it uncertainty that may be off-putting when deciding how to proceed with a claim involving multiple claimants. There is a much greater body of case law, and practical experience of, dealing with the various procedural issues that can arise where such claims are brought using the informal methods of claims aggregation outlined above. This is all the more so given the lack of any successful certification application to date – corporate claimants in particular may err on the side of caution. It remains to be seen to what extent this will change over time.

Assignment of claims to special-purpose vehicles

The assignment of damages claims to special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) has become a feature of the competition litigation landscape in a number of jurisdictions, most notably the Netherlands, and Germany. [60] However, at the time of writing, this route has not been used in the UK for competition damages claims. [61]

For many years, it was considered that such an approach would be impermissible under historic rules prohibiting third parties from supporting an unconnected party’s litigation, known as the doctrines of maintenance and champerty. [62] While those rules have been relaxed in recent years, and third-party litigation funding is now generally permitted (and indeed becoming a critical feature of the competition litigation landscape – see further below), it seemed clear until recently that the rules would be applied more strictly where claims were assigned to a third party to pursue in its own name. It was thus expected that the courts would refuse to recognise, on the grounds of public policy, the assignment of a bare right to litigate (i.e., where the assignee does not have an interest sufficient to justify pursuit of proceedings for his or her own benefit). [63]

However, the recent cases of JEB Recoveries LLP v. Binstock [64] and Casehub Ltd v. Wolf Cola Ltd [65] suggest that the UK courts may be becoming increasingly flexible. In both those cases claims that had been assigned to a third party were permitted to proceed and were held not to infringe the rules of maintenance and champerty. The Casehub judgment is particularly interesting, in that the business model pursued by the claimant – described by the court as ‘a company which builds consumer group actions online’ – appears similar to the practice seen in other jurisdictions of SPVs ‘bundling’ assigned damages claims.

It is not clear, however, whether these decisions will lead to attempts to pursue this route for competition damages claims in the future. Each case will turn on its facts, and it would certainly be dangerous to interpret the JEB Recoveries and Casehub decisions as giving carte blanche to the practice of assigning claims to an SPV where they are to be pursued in the English courts. Furthermore, seeking to bring a competition claim in this way is arguably largely unnecessary in light of the other options available to victims of competition law infringements before the UK courts.

Growth of third-party litigation funding

The historical restrictions on third-party litigation funding on the basis of the doctrines of maintenance and champerty have been significantly relaxed, and the market for third-party litigation funding in the UK is growing at pace. Claims for damages based on breaches of competition law are one of a number of different areas where such funding is now increasingly commonplace: litigating competition law claims can be very complex and costly, involving extensive expert economic evidence, such that bringing individual actions may not be economically viable, in particular for consumer or small business claimants. Unsurprisingly, third-party funding has therefore proven particularly important in the context of opt-out collective actions commenced under the expanded Section 47B CA98 regime, where the class representative is exposed to significant costs risks. [66] Indeed, all of the CPO applications made at the time of writing are known to have involved third-party litigation funding to some extent (although little detail about the arrangements is publicly available, with the exception of the arrangements in Merricks v. Mastercard, which were considered in some detail by the CAT – see above). [67]

When the 2015 collective actions reforms were first introduced, concerns were raised about a perceived lack of incentives for funders, given the default position under Section 47C(5) CA98 that any unclaimed damages in an opt-out collective action (likely to be substantial in practice) [68] are paid to a prescribed charity, currently the Access to Justice Foundation (subject to the power of the CAT to order that all or part of such funds is paid to the class representative in respect of all or part of the costs or expenses it incurred in connection with the proceedings). [69] However, in Merricks v. Mastercard, the CAT confirmed that third-party funders could be paid from any unclaimed damages [70] and also dismissed objections to the funding agreement entered into with Burford Capital in that case (once certain modifications had been made to the agreement). [71] As a result, the trend for the involvement of third-party funders in competition collective proceedings is expected to continue (and is likely to be fundamental to the future development of the regime).

Settlement dynamics in collective claims

In practice, competition claims in the UK are often settled before trial. This trend is supported by the wide range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available in the UK (including mediation, adjudication and expert determination) and the UK courts’ encouragement thereof. In claims involving multiple claimants, the dynamics of possible settlement of the claim can be particularly complex and a number of issues require careful consideration.

As with any multi-party settlement, it is critical to ensure that the parties to any settlement agreement are properly identified, so there is no room for doubt as to which parties are bound by it. In terms of settlement strategy, in some cases there may be advantages for defendants in entering into multiple different settlement agreements, playing off the various claimants against each other, and potentially settling with some earlier than others, and/or on different terms. In other cases, it may be preferable to insist on settling with all claimants (for ‘global peace’) or not at all, on the basis that it is not worthwhile from the defendant’s perspective to settle any of the claims if it will still have to spend time and money defending the remaining claim.

Consideration will also need to be given to the risk of additional claims ‘coming out of the woodwork’ at a later date; in practice, this may mean that it is difficult to agree a settlement until the relevant limitation period for the claims has expired. From the claimants’ perspective, determining how long to hold out before settling will depend not only on the strength of the claim, but also on factors such as costs, the existence or indeed absence of a co-ordinated settlement strategy with the other claimants, and the amount of damages being sought compared to the amount being offered by way of settlement. Differences between claimants can materialise in these situations.

For claims in respect of which an opt-out CPO has been (or could be) issued by the CAT, specific rules apply to collective settlement of the claim, giving the CAT the power to review and approve the terms of the settlement. [72] The detailed procedure is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, in summary, where an opt-out CPO has been made, the CAT may make a collective settlement approval order [73] where it is satisfied that the terms of the settlement are ‘just and reasonable’. [74] Where no CPO has been made, but could have been, the CAT has similar powers to review and approve any proposed collective settlement, but the parties must first apply for a collective settlement order (analogous to a CPO application but made by the proposed settlement representative and would-be defendant), followed by an application for a collective settlement approval order. [75]

This collective settlement procedure does not apply to opt-in collective proceedings, although the CAT’s permission is required to settle such proceedings if the date specified in the CPO for opting in to the claim has not yet expired at the time of the settlement. [76]

Conclusion

The competition litigation landscape in the UK is at a particularly interesting stage of its development in respect of collective actions. Long recognised as a dynamic and ‘claimant-friendly’ forum for competition damages claims more generally, the UK now also has an expanded competition-specific opt-out collective actions regime that is really ‘getting off the ground’, alongside an established alternative route for claims aggregation and joint case management for cases involving multiple claimants where a CPO application is not considered suitable.

Important questions remain as to the appropriate legal test to be applied at the certification stage, which should be addressed by the Supreme Court in Merricks v. Mastercard. Once that judgment is handed down, and the CAT proceeds with the certification hearings in the pending Trucks, Railways and Forex CPO applications, there should be significantly more clarity on this key stage in proceedings under the new regime. As and when the CAT grants its first CPO, this will open up the next phase in the development of competition collective proceedings in the UK, to be closely watched by potential claimants and defendants alike.


Notes

1 Kim Dietzel and Stephen Wisking are partners, James White is an associate, Andrew North is of counsel, and Ruth Allen is a professional support lawyer at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

2 There are a number of reasons for the UK’s reputation as a ‘claimant-friendly’ jurisdiction, including a generally high standard of procedural fairness, an established judiciary willing to grapple with complex legal and economic issues, and wide disclosure rules. While the EU Damages Directive is intended to create a more level playing field in terms of private enforcement of competition law across EU Member States, important differences between jurisdictions still remain, and the UK is expected to maintain its position as a forum of choice.

3 The High Court routes discussed in this chapter are specific to the courts of England and Wales; different rules apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. England and Wales is by far the largest jurisdiction within the United Kingdom in terms of competition cases, and therefore the focus of this chapter. The competition-specific collective actions regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal applies to all of the United Kingdom.

4 ‘Follow-on’ claims are those based on an infringement decision by the UK Competition and Markets Authority, or, at the time of writing, the European Commission. Following the exit of the UK from the European Union (Brexit), currently scheduled to occur on 31 January 2020, it is anticipated that competition law infringement decisions of the European Commission issued after that date will no longer be treated as binding proof of liability before UK courts. However, the terms on which Brexit will occur are still unclear, and a detailed consideration of the long-term impact on competition litigation in the UK is beyond the scope of this chapter.

5 i.e., on behalf of named consumers who had taken active steps to ‘opt in’ to joining the claim.

6 ‘Stand-alone’ claims are those where there is no underlying infringement decision that can be relied upon as binding before the court, meaning that claimants must prove liability as well as causation and quantum.

7 i.e., anyone falling within the definition of the relevant class is automatically included in the claim (and loses their right to bring an individual action), unless they actively choose to ‘opt out’.

8 While the CAT is intended to be the primary forum for competition cases, as a specialist tribunal with relevant expertise and experience, it is also possible for competition claims to be brought before the High Court. Prior to the wide-ranging reforms implemented by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the decision as to where to bring a claim was often dictated by limitation periods, which differed between the CAT and the High Court. This issue was addressed by the 2015 reforms (such that a six-year limitation period now applies to claims both before the CAT and the High Court), subject to the complication that claims before the CAT where the cause of action arose prior to 1 October 2015 (even if proceedings are commenced after that date) remain subject to the ‘old’ rules on limitation. Proceedings may also be transferred from the High Court to the CAT pursuant to Section 16(4) of the Enterprise Act 2002. As discussed below, there is a growing trend for such a transfer to be made, combined with joint case management before the CAT, where multiple claims are brought that relate to similar underlying facts.

9 Inserted by the Enterprise Act 2002.

10 The Consumers’ Association v. JJB Sports Plc (Case No. 1078/7/9/07).

11 See ‘Class action is one big headache, says Which?’, The Lawyer, 1 December 2008, www.thelawyer.com/issues/1-december-2008/class-action-is-one-big-headache-says-which/.

12 Section 80 and Schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

13 SI 1648/2015. The CAT’s Guide to Proceedings also provides further guidance on the CAT’s collective redress jurisdiction and the applicable procedure.

14 Section 47B(6) CA98.

15 Section 47B(8) CA98.

16 In respect of the first CPO application, Dorothy Gibson v. Pride Mobility Products Ltd, the application was ultimately withdrawn, rather than formally rejected by the CAT. However, this was after the CAT had indicated in a judgment dated 31 March 2017 ([2017] CAT 9) that it would not be willing to certify the claim as pleaded, and adjourned the application with permission for Ms Gibson to file and serve a draft amended claim form that addressed the issues identified by the CAT. In the second CPO application, Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others, certification was refused by the CAT ([2017] CAT 16).

17 UK Trucks Claim Ltd v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and others (opt-out application lodged on 18 May 2018); Road Haulage Association Ltd v. Man SE and others (opt-in application lodged on 17 July 2018); Gutmann v. London and South Eastern Railway Ltd (opt-out application lodged on 27 February 2019); Gutmann v. First MTR South Western Trains Ltd and Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd (opt-out application lodged on 27 February 2019); and Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd v. Barclays Bank PLC and others (opt-out application lodged on 29 July 2019).

18 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2019] EWCA Civ 674.

19 The application made by the Road Haulage Association Ltd following on from the European Commission’s Trucks infringement decision is the exception. While this application has not yet been heard, the summary of the notice of the application published by the CAT states that the proposed class representative is seeking permission to bring the collective proceedings on an opt-in basis.

20 Gutmann v. London and South Eastern Railway Ltd (opt-out application lodged on 27 February 2019); Gutmann v. First MTR South Western Trains Ltd and Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd (opt-out application lodged on 27 February 2019). These applications are being heard jointly, and advance similar claims brought against three different defendants.

21 The operators of the South Western and Southeastern rail franchises are alleged to have not made ‘boundary’ fares readily available for Transport for London Travelcard holders to purchase (i.e., fares covering the section of their journey to and from central London that is not already covered by their Travelcard), nor making passengers aware of their existence. It is claimed that the rail companies’ failures have left customers with little option but to buy a higher fare than they would have needed because their Travelcard already entitled them to travel for part of their journey, and that the conduct amounts to an abuse of a dominant position.

22 Gibson v. Pride, Merricks v. Mastercard, Gutmann v. London & South Eastern and Gutmann v. First MTR South Western are all claims brought on behalf of consumers. However, the two applications made by UKTC and RHA following on from the Trucks infringements, and the most recent application made by Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd in the Forex case, have all been brought on behalf of businesses.

23 Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd v. Barclays Bank PLC and others (lodged on 29 July 2019), which follows on.

24 Dorothy Gibson v. Pride Mobility Products Ltd [2017] CAT 9.

25 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2017] CAT 16 (CAT judgment); Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2019] EWCA Civ 674 (Court of Appeal judgment).

26 The European Commission decision relied upon in this case related to intra-EEA fees, while the proposed collective action relates to domestic UK fees. If the action is ultimately permitted to proceed following the determination of the pending appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s judgment overturning the CAT’s refusal to certify the claim, this is likely to be a key issue in dispute.

27 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2017] CAT 16, Paragraph 67.

28 It is possible that the claim was framed solely as a follow-on claim because of limitation period considerations.

29 Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. [2013] SCC 57.

30 ibid., Paragraph 118 of the judgment.

31 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2017] CAT 16, Paragraph 57.

32 The Court of Appeal stated that ‘the making of a CPO does not prevent the CAT from subsequently terminating the proceedings if it subsequently transpires that the proposed representative is unable to access sufficient data to enable the experts’ method of calculating the rate of pass-on to be performed’, referring to Section 47B(9) CA98. It noted that this course of action has been taken in a number of Canadian cases.

33 The annualised per capita division proposed by the applicant’s economic experts bore no link to actual purchases made by each individual and therefore to actual loss.

34 Court of Appeal judgment, Paragraph 61.

35 Rule 78(2) of the CAT Rules 2015.

36 The CAT agreed that, under the funding agreement’s original drafting, the total investment return could not be said to be ‘incurred’ by Mr Merricks, as it contained no actual obligation to pay the fee. However, at the certification hearing Mr Merricks agreed to amend the agreement so that it would provide that he agreed to pay the total investment return, limited to the proportion of this determined by the CAT to be payable pursuant to Section 47C(6) CA98. The CAT found that this created conditional liability to pay the fee, which could then be said to be ‘incurred’ for the purposes of the legislation. It also noted in passing that the similar conditional obligation to pay an uplift or success fee in a conditional fee agreement would be covered. The funding agreement, as amended, was therefore not rendered ineffective by Section 47C(6) CA98 and the termination risk did not arise.

37 A joint hearing on certification scheduled for 13 December 2019 has been vacated due to the appeal to the Supreme Court in Merricks v. Mastercard.

38 Roth J pointed out that the consideration of the question of which class representative is most suitable is dealt with in the CAT Guide to Proceedings 2015 in the context of a scenario where there are two applications for opt-out proceedings. In such circumstances, if the two opt-out applications were made on behalf of the same or overlapping classes, the CAT would need to decide which could proceed, if either. However, where there are two opt-in proceedings, or one opt-in and one-opt out, Roth J considered that choosing between the two actions is a matter for the individual claimant. See pages 1 and 2 of the transcript of the case management conference (available on the CAT website: www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-01/1282-1289_Trucks_Transcript_121218_1.pdf).

39 This conclusion was in line with Paragraph 6.92 of the CAT Guide to Proceedings 2015 (which has the status of a Practice Direction), which provides: ‘. . . there is no statutory provision for appeals against the Tribunal’s decision on an application for a CPO. Therefore, any challenge to such decisions can only be brought by way of judicial review.’

40 Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. Mastercard Inc and others [2018] WLR (D) 697. Section 49(1A) CA98 provides: ‘An appeal lies to the appropriate court on a point of law arising from a decision of the Tribunal in proceedings under section 47A or in collective proceedings: (a) as to the award of damages or other sum (other than a decision on costs or expenses); or (b) as to the grant of an injunction.’

41 ibid., Paragraph 27 of the judgment.

42 Confirmed on https://mastercardconsumerclaim.co.uk (a website set up to provide information to potential claimants in this case).

43 CPR Rule 19.6(1).

44 Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v. British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA 1284.

45 Emerald Supplies alleged that British Airways had entered into concerted practices with other airlines to fix prices for air freight prices.

46 ibid., Paragraph 63. At the time the claim was brought, the European Commission had not concluded its investigation into the Air Cargo cartel, which meant that the claim was brought on a stand-alone rather than follow-on basis.

47 ibid., Paragraph 64.

48 In Lloyd v. Google [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (judgment of 2 October 2019), the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s refusal to allow Mr Lloyd to use Rule 19.6 of the CPR as a means of bringing an ‘opt-out’ class action against Google alleging breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and seeking £3 billion in damages on behalf of over four million iPhone users. The Court of Appeal held that the use of the representative action procedure was permissible. It was irrelevant that the claim was being brought on behalf of a large number of claimants, or that the represented class was defined in a fluid manner. The Court considered that the members of the represented class were all victims of the same alleged wrong, during the same period, and had all sustained the same loss. While this was not a competition law claim, it has been suggested that the more permissive approach could potentially have some application to the competition law context, and may encourage claimants to consider using the representative action route. However, it is by no means clear that the same approach would be adopted in other contexts, and a key factor in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning appears to have been the exceptional circumstances of the facts of this case. Additionally, Google has stated that it will appeal the decision.

49 As a result of recommendations made by Lord Woolf following his Access to Justice Inquiry, which issued its final report in 1996 (see Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (HMSO, 1996)).

50 CPR, Rule 19.10.

51 An application for a GLO can be made by either a claimant or defendant at any time in the proceedings, before or after any relevant claims have been issued.

52 CPR, Rule 19.2.

53 For example, claims by shareholders against a company for financial loss, such as in the RBS Rights Issue Litigation (2013) and the Lloyds/HBOS Litigation (2014); product liability and personal injury claims, such as the PIP Breast Implant Litigation (2012); nuisance claims by residents against local landfill or industrial sites, such as the Omega Proteins Group Litigation (2018), and, most recently, claims made by motorists in the UK in the VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation (2018).

54 Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v. British Airways Plc [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch), Paragraph 38.

55 Prentice Ltd/Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd Litigation, 30 April 2001, 2001 Folio 398. Prentice was one of a number of car dealers in the Daimler Chrysler network, that alleged that the re-organisation of the dealership network infringed competition law. The case ultimately settled before trial.

57 To date, the main direction of transfer of claims has been from the High Court to the CAT, but transfer in the other direction has also occurred. See further footnote 8 above.

58 Conflicting conclusions were reached at first instance in two judgments by the High Court (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v. Visa Europe Services LLC and others and Asda Stores Ltd and others v. Mastercard Inc and others) and a further judgment by the CAT (Mastercard Inc and others v. Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd). All three judgments were appealed jointly to the Court of Appeal, which subsequently referred certain aspects back to the CAT to be determined jointly for all three claims (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v. MasterCard Inc and others, Asda Stores Ltd and others v. Mastercard Inc and others and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v. Visa Europe Services LLC, Visa Europe Ltd and Visa UK Ltd, [2018] EWCA 1536 (Civ)).

59 Although as noted above, the application for an opt-out CPO seeking damages following on from the two European Commission Forex decisions also envisages larger companies being within the class of claimants.

60 By way of example, see the action brought before the Dutch courts by the entity East West Debt (EWD) against members of the Air Cargo cartel. In its judgment of 7 January 2014,the Amsterdam Court of Appeal confirmed that EWD had standing to bring the claim, having purchased a large number of damages claims by way of assignment (reference 200.122.098/01).

61 The application for a CPO in respect of UK Trucks Claim Ltd v. Fiat Chrysler and others has been made by a special purpose vehicle, UK Trucks Claim Ltd (UKTC), which is a company limited by guarantee established for the purpose of making the CPO application and bringing the proposed collective proceedings. However, that special purpose vehicle is acting as a (proposed) class representative, on behalf of the (proposed) class of claimants, rather than the relevant claims being assigned to the special purpose vehicle and bundled together to be brought directly by it.

62 ‘Maintenance’ refers to an unconnected third party providing improper support of litigation without just cause or excuse. ‘Champerty’ is an aggravated form of maintenance, where the unconnected third party pays some or all of the litigation costs in return for a share of the proceeds.

63 See Simpson v. Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149, which followed the House of Lords decision in Trendtex Trading Corp v. Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 HL, which established that the assignment of a cause of action will be void as against public policy where the assignee does not have a ‘sufficient interest’ to justify pursuit of the proceedings for his or her own benefit.

64 [2015] EWHC 1063 (Ch). In that case, the High Court refused to strike out a claim as champertous where it had been assigned to an LLP in which the assignor had a one-third interest and which had been formed to pursue the assigned claim (and other similar claims).

65 [2017] EWHC 1169 (Ch). This case involved the assignment of contractual claims to the claimant (described by the court as ‘a company which builds consumer group actions online’) under two different forms of claim purchase agreements. In the first, the assignor was to receive any sums recovered less a fixed percentage of 40 per cent; in the second, the assignor received a fixed amount of £40 and the claimant retained any sums recovered from the defendant. The High Court granted declarations that the assignments were not void as against the rules of champerty and maintenance.

66 In opt-out collective proceedings, costs may be awarded to, or against, the class representative, but generally cannot be awarded to or against members of the class. The use of contingency fees (i.e., no win no fee) and damages-based agreements (i.e., where the lawyers’ fees are related to the damages awarded, not the work done, and no fees are payable in the event of a loss) are not permitted in opt-out collective proceedings (see Section 47C CA98), which means that in practice third-party funding is critical to getting such actions off the ground.

67 In Gibson v. Pride, there was no third-party funding agreement as such, but Burford Capital (a third-party litigation funder) paid the premium for the ATE insurance taken out by Ms Gibson (the class representative). The other six CPO applications brought to date have all involved third-party funding agreements. The following third-party funders are known to be involved: Burford Capital (Merricks v. Mastercard); Calunius Capital (UKTC v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and others); Therium Capital Management (RHA Limited v. Man SE and others and Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd v. Barclays Bank and others); and Woodsford Litigation Funding (Gutmann v. London and South Eastern Railway Ltd and Gutmann v. First MTR South Western Trains Ltd and Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd).

68 In practice, not all potential claimants will be aware of the damages award (even if extensively advertised), some may no longer have the relevant evidence required to prove their entitlement to damages (e.g., receipts), and some will inevitably not perceive it to be ‘worth the hassle’ to claim, particularly in a consumer claim involving relatively small sums per claimant.

69 Section 47C(6) CA98.

70 On the basis that the concept of ‘costs or expenses’ in Section 47C(6) CA98 includes a liability to pay the charge of a third-party funder. This conclusion was not affected by the Court of Appeal decision overturning the CAT’s decision to reject the CPO application.

71 See footnote 36 above.

72 See Sections 49A and 49B CA98, and Rules 94-97 of the CAT Rules 2015.

73 Binding all persons covered by the order based in the UK who do not expressly opt-out of the settlement, and those not based in the UK if they opt-in.

74 Rule 97(7) of the CAT Rules 2015 sets out a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors that the CAT may take into account in determining whether this is the case. See also Paragraphs 6.96–6.101 of the CAT Guide to Proceedings 2015.

75 Rule 96 of the CAT Rules 2015. See also Paragraphs 6.102–6.116 of the CAT Guide to Proceedings 2015.

76 Rule 95 of the CAT Rules 2015. See also Paragraphs 6.6 and 6.95 of the CAT Guide to Proceedings 2015.

Get unlimited access to all Global Competition Review content