Collective Proceedings in the CAT: The Year in Review

2025 saw a number of developments in collective proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘CAT’). In previous years there have been new claims coming thick and fast and the focus has been almost entirely on certification, but 2025 was the year that saw more substantive decisions and cases moving through the CAT. Some of the most important developments of the year were:

• An attempt to appeal the judgment from the first opt-out trial failed. In December 2024, the class representative (‘CR’) lost the first opt-out trial (Justin Le Patourel v BT). In 2025, he sought permission to appeal that decision, first from the CAT and then directly from the Court of Appeal (‘CA’). He was denied permission to appeal both times. The CA’s judgment clarified the scope of its jurisdiction in hearing appeals against CAT judgments, making clear that the CA would not be quick to insert its own judgment in place of the CAT’s as a specialist tribunal having heard all the evidence.
• In appeals brought by defendants in four separate collective proceedings, the CA clarified which litigation funding agreements (‘LFAs’) amount to damages based agreements (‘DBAs’) following the PACCAR judgment. The CA held that an LFA in which the funder’s fee is calculated as a multiple of its outlay, even where it contains a cap by reference to the amount of damages, is not ‘determined by the amount of financial benefit obtained*’ and so is not a DBA. The Ministry of Justice have since released a statement announcing that, among other things, they plan to legislate to undo *PACCAR and clarify that LFAs are not DBAs.
• One of the defining moments of the year came when Innsworth Capital started arbitration proceedings against Mr Merricks and launched a judicial review of the CAT’s distribution order relating to the settlement in Merricks v Mastercard. While the exact events are perhaps unlikely to unfold again, with a £14bn claim being settled for £200m, the dispute highlights the potential for conflict between funders and CRs over settlement strategy.
• The first CR succeeded in an opt-out trial. Following failures by the CRs in Justin Le Patourel v BT and Boundary Fares, Dr Rachel Kent succeeded in her claim against Apple concerning purchases by users of Apple devices of iOS apps and in-app content. As well as being a landmark in collective actions the case demonstrated the CAT’s strict adherence to the conventional excessive pricing test in finding that Apple’s 30% commission was excessively priced despite arguments about the value it provides through its ecosystem.
• The Supreme Court handed down judgment on whether claims should be opt-in or opt-out in the FX proceedings. Overturning the CA, the Supreme Court held that the CAT had been entitled to refuse to grant the proposed CR permission to bring collective proceedings as opt-out claims. The judgment emphasises the gate keeper role of the CAT at certification, something which has arguably not been central to the CA's approach to certification to date.

With more cases due to reach trial in 2026 and the legislative reform of litigation funding on the agenda, the pace of developments in collective proceedings is set to continue. To keep track of all proceedings, and key developments keep an eye on our Collective Proceedings Tracker available here.