Video: Ten years of opt-out collective actions in the UK

Craig Arnott: Legal finance is an essential part of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and other European jurisdictions that allow for opt-out claims, such as the Netherlands. Funding ensures that claimants do not bear the costs of complex litigation themselves.

Charlie Rooke: Without it, most collective actions, whether for individual consumers or businesses, would never get off the ground, particularly given the high cost of litigation for often relatively small amounts of damages on an individualized basis.

Craig Arnott: Collective redress also ensures that wrongdoers, such as cartelists, are held to account and those who are harmed by their anti-competitive conduct and high pricing are adequately compensated for their losses.

Charlie Rooke: The UK government is now carrying out a review of the opt-out collective actions regime to mark its 10 year anniversary. The review recognizes the pivotal role, the competition of pure tribunal plays and how the regime has developed over the last 10 years.

Craig Arnott: That review with which Burford is actively engaging recognizes the pivotal role that the Competition Appeals Tribunal—many people call it the CAT—plays in the UK, and shows how the regime has developed over the last 10 years.

Charlie Rooke: The government's review seeks evidence on whether the regime is meeting its objectives. First, delivering access to justice by allowing groups of consumers and businesses to pursue claims they could not feasibly bring alone. Second, ensuring fairness and efficiency by examining whether the regime balances the interest of claimants, defendants, legal finance providers and the justice system. Third, supporting effective consumer redress by considering how well opt-out proceedings deliver outcomes of benefits for affected groups.

Craig Arnott: These are very important questions and the review underscores how central opt-out collective actions are as a mechanism in our legal system to hold powerful companies accountable. But it recognizes also that cases are complex and that resolutions have so far been few and far between. These cases just can take too long, but it highlights how essential it is, therefore, that the CAT continues to act as an efficient and effective gatekeeper, ensuring that claims are properly certified and that the regime allows for meaningful remedies to be paid to those affected by the anti-competitive behavior of wrongdoers.

Charlie Rooke: The call for evidence also reflects the UK's growing recognition that collective redress procedures can strengthen consumer protection and market integrity, aligning the regime more closely with best practices. It recognizes that litigation should not be the only way for consumers in particular to be compensated. There's also a place for redress mechanisms and alternative forms of dispute resolution. These can be quicker and more efficient and ease the burden on both claimants and defendants.

Craig Arnott: Burford Capital can be available for that as well. There is also the question of how to deal with other types of wrongdoing, such as environmental and data privacy infringement. Those affected risks slipping through the net if there's no way of them being compensated by the existing collective redress system.

Charlie Rooke: The opt-out regime has come a long way in the last 10 years. Resolutions are coming, cases are being certified more quickly and distributions are being made to those harmed. But as the review recognizes, there's still a long way to go and lots still to resolve. It's output will help to shape what the next 10 years of collective address holds in the UK.

Craig Arnott: Burford, throughout that time, will remain one of the leading providers of legal finance for collective redress and will be able to utilize its significant experience in the CAT.

Charlie Rooke: We have backed some of the largest UK competition claims ever brought, including collective actions, such as a multi-billion pound damages case against Google on behalf of UK search advertisers. Because of our size and our stability, we can support long running high value competition cases without financial pressure to settle early.

Craig Arnott: Our financing can ensure that wrongdoing companies are held to account, and consumers and businesses affected by anti-competitive conduct obtain redress for the harm they have suffered. Our London-based team has deep expertise in not only UK, but also European competition law, commercial litigation and arbitration, and nearly 90% of the UK's largest law firms have sought our funding.