Lord Woolf, Multi-Party Situations, and Limitation Periods

Author(s):  
Rachael Mulheron

More than twenty years ago, Lord Woolf MR recommended the implementation of a regime which could cater for opt-in or opt-out class actions. It was not until 1 October 2015 that such a regime was enacted—and solely for competition law grievances of either a follow-on or a stand-alone nature. A key aspect of any class action design is how to handle limitation periods for the representative claimant and for class members. In his seminal report, Lord Woolf flagged up that appropriate provisions for limitation periods would be a proper subject for primary, rather than secondary, legislation. Accordingly, limitation periods duly became the subject of careful drafting in the 2015 regime, courtesy of section 47E of the Competition Act 1998. This chapter reflects upon some of the key comparative drafting lessons of class action regimes elsewhere which were helpful and instructive for that drafting exercise.

This book provides a comprehensive guide to all aspects of competition litigation in the UK. It covers both practice and procedure in the UK courts as well as in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. All aspects of case work are covered, from commencement of proceedings, group litigation, jurisdiction, applicable law, evidence, remedies, costs, and arbitration to criminal proceedings, giving competition lawyers a full analysis of the litigation process. There are also new chapters dedicated to the practice and procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland.Fully updated in its second edition, coverage reflects important amendments to the Competition Act 1998; for example, the introduction of rules for class actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result of the implementation of the Damages Directive, Directive 2014/204, new rules have been introduced for disclosure and joint and several liability. The book also covers the new cartel offence, which no longer has the mens rea of dishonesty.The new edition covers a range of important new cases: to name but a few, Sainsbury’s v MasterCard on the pass-on defence; Dorothy Gibson and Walter Merricks on opt-out class action; Cooper Tire and Toshiba Carrier on anchor defendants; and Deutsche Bahn on applicable law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (42) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
T. Oldak

The article is devoted to the study of international experience of theoretical and practical aspects of proceedings in class actions. This study will present various models of regulation in this area of the Anglo-Saxon and mixed legal families. By analyzing this legal basis, the practice of application will be possible to establish the essence of the class action in civil proceedings by disclosing the main features that are inherent in it and are such that distinguish it from other procedural structures aimed at protecting violated rights and legitimate interests as effective judicial mechanism.The subject of the study is issues related to one of the jurisdictional ways to protect the rights and legitimate interests of large groups of people. The purpose of this work is to publish the results of the study, which was conducted as part of a dissertation study on "Group lawsuit in civil proceedings in Ukraine." During the study, a general scientific dialectical method of use was used, which allowed to comprehensively study the main provisions of class action in foreign procedural law and the possibility of its development in the legislation of Ukraine, and provided an opportunity to reveal the nature of class actions in civil proceedings. stages. The scope of application of the results of the development of the theoretical basis in the field of mechanisms for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of large groups of persons in order to introduce the appropriate procedure in the civil procedure legislation of Ukraine.Key words: civil proceedings, group lawsuit, initiating plaintiff, numerous groups, litigation proceedings, model "opt-in", "opt-out".


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Thorne

<b>Abstract </b><p>This thesis addresses the question of whether New Zealand should reform its class action procedures in order to better meet the class action objectives of efficiency and access to justice. Class actions are a mechanism whereby groups of claimants with the same or similar claims can band together and bring proceedings. The ability for groups of similarly affected claimants to bring proceedings together provides certain advantages, including efficiency (both judicial efficiency and cost efficiency) and access to justice (where there may otherwise be none). The existence of a class action mechanism can also have a regulatory effect and serve to discourage illegal or inappropriate conduct. </p> <b>Currently, New Zealand does not have a dedicated class actions regime, and instead operates a class action type procedure under r 4.24 of the High Court Rules (known as a representative action). A review of the New Zealand position in relation to r 4.24 indicates that while there is a substantial body of law relating to the use of the representative action procedure, the objectives of the representative action procedure are not being met. The lack of legislative guidance in relation to the representative action has created significant difficulties for claimants in New Zealand. </b><p>Reforming the New Zealand class action procedure through legislative reform would provide a more efficient procedure and enhance access to justice. Wholesale legislative reform in the form of a dedicated class actions statute would be the best way forward for New Zealand. Legislative reform would need to address particular issues that have arisen in Australia and Ontario, including issues associated with the same interest requirement, opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, settlement requirements and limitation periods. The experience in Ontario and Australia illustrates the importance of ensuring the legislation is as clear as possible, and learning from the experience in those jurisdictions is vital if the objectives of the class action procedure are to be met. </p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Voit

After the reform is before the reform: the search is on for a successor to the model declaratory action, which was only introduced in 2018 and is neither suitable for dealing with mass cases nor for implementing the Representative Actions Directive. The author proposes the introduction of an opt-out class action, which allows associations and individuals to collectively pursue subjective rights. A major challenge is to ensure that the rules on the funding of class actions provide sufficient incentives to bring legitimate actions without infringing on the legitimate interests of the defendant or class members. Australian class actions, which are regularly enabled by litigation funders, are being examined as a possible model.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 68-75
Author(s):  
V. A. Kolotov

The paper is devoted to some issues associated with a class action. The subject matter of the study is relevant in light of a comprehensive reform of this institution in the arbitration procedure and the emergence of class actions in civil procedure. The author highlights that class action proceedings cannot be considered as an equal alternative to joinder. Thus, in the author’s view, along with quantitative criteria some other criteria should be used to distinguish class action proceedings from joinder. The author investigates the issue of competition between the class action and individual claims. This problem is resolved in procedural codes in different ways. The paper focuses on some problems associated with the grounds and order of replacement of the claimant representing parties involved. Taking into account that the law allows considering homogeneous claims in collective proceedings, the author concludes that it is necessary to elaborate more detailed rules relating to the case where the class action involves a set of individual claims brought by each participant.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 43-67
Author(s):  
Tihamér Tóth

The paper explores the changes the EU Directive on harmonizing certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions will bring about in Hungary, with a special focus placed on damages liability rules, the interaction of public and private enforcement of these rules, and the importance of class actions. Amendments of the Competition Act introduced in 2005 and 2009 had created new rules to promote the idea of private enforcement even before the Directive was adopted. Some of these rules remain unique even now, notably the legal presumption of a 10% price increase for cartel cases. However, subsequent cases decided by Hungarian courts did not reflect the sophistication of existing substantive and procedural rules. There has only ever been one judgment awarding damages, while most stand-alone cases involved minor competition law issues relating to contractual disputes. The paper looks at the most important substantial rules of tort law (damage, causality, joint and several liability), the co-operation of competition authorities and civil courts, as well as at (the lack of) class action procedures from the perspective of the interaction of public and private enforcement of competition law.


Legal Studies ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Wardhaugh

The European desire to ensure that bearers of EU rights are adequately compensated for any infringement of these rights, particularly in cases where the harm is widely diffused, and perhaps not even noticed by those affected by it, collides with another desire: to avoid the perceived excesses of an American-style system of class actions. The excesses of these American class actions are in European discourse presented as a sort of bogeyman, which is a source of irrational fear, often presented by parental or other authority figures. But when looked at critically, the bogeyman disappears. In this paper, I examine the European (and UK) proposals for collective action. I compare them to the American regime. The flaws and purported excesses of the American regime, I argue, are exaggerated. A close, objective examination of the American regime shows this. I conclude that it is not the mythical bogeyman of a US class action that is the barrier to effective collective redress; rather, the barriers to effective, wide-ranging group actions lie within European legal culture and traditions, particularly those mandating individual control over litigation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theo Broodryk

ABSTRACT As far as the author is aware, there has not been an empirical analysis of class actions in South Africa since the introduction of the mechanism by the interim Constitution of 1993 more than 25 years ago. There is no publicly available data which provides meaningful empirical insight into the operation of the South African class action. There is consequently much that we do not know about it. This article attempts to examine class actions over a period spanning more than 19 years. The purpose of the article will be to provide, through an analysis of case law, an empirical exposition of class actions instituted in South Africa using the criteria and methodology mentioned below. The study demonstrates that, although there have been only a limited number of certification judgments delivered to date, there has been rapid growth in the number of certification judgments delivered in the past five years. Most of these judgments are aimed at providing access to justice for poor and marginalised individuals. The data presented herein could place South Africa in the fortuitous position of being able to build a comprehensive data archive in which the class action is statistically dissected. Without comprehensive data concerning the operation of the class action, the available information will be insufficient from the perspective of providing adequate insight to enable its optimal development going forward. Keywords: Class action; empirical data; access to justice; certification; opt-in; opt-out; bifurcation; settlement


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 245-257
Author(s):  
Kathryn McMahon

Merricks v Mastercard [2019] is the first action under the newly developed ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings regime for aggregate damages under UK competition law to be considered by the UK Court of Appeal. It is significant for both the level of damages (£14 billion (€16 billion)) and the clarification of the legal test at the certification stage for the suitability for an aggregate award: the method for calculation of the aggregate damages and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court’s lowering of these thresholds importantly opens the door to future class actions and reasserts the importance of collective proceedings as a valuable means of redress for competition law infringements. The decision has now been appealed to the UK Supreme Court where these issues may be further clarified and resolved.


2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Legg ◽  
Louisa Travers

Australian class actions have recently undergone a revolution in relation to the financing of litigation and group definition. Australia has historically banned contingency fees and adopted an opt-out class action. However, the law now allows for third-party litigation funding where non-lawyers may finance class actions in return for a share of the recovery and for the class action to be defined as a closed class that only includes those group members who have entered into a litigation funding agreement. These developments have important ramifications for class action practice. Litigation funding filled the financing gap in Australian class actions and consequently facilitated access to justice. However, the need for a contractual relationship to allow for the quasi-contingency fee to be recovered led to the employment of a closed class. The closed class dissuaded ‘free-riding’ but also undermined the Australian class action objectives of access to justice and efficient resolution of disputes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document