Class Action Lawsuits in the UK 2026
Class action lawsuits in the United Kingdom have undergone a transformation so dramatic over the past decade that the country is now widely regarded as the most active arena for mass litigation outside of the United States. What began as a cautious, opt-in-heavy system built around Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) in the High Court has evolved into a robust and increasingly assertive collective redress ecosystem, anchored by the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) opt-out collective proceedings regime, which was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and has matured considerably since then. By the beginning of 2025, the total value of claims before the CAT alone had exceeded £160 billion, a number that would have seemed unthinkable when the regime first opened its doors just ten years ago. With landmark rulings, record-breaking settlements, and a wave of new cases poised to enter the system in 2026, the UK class action landscape is at a pivotal inflection point.
For businesses, consumers, legal professionals, and investors, understanding the current statistics, trends, and mechanics of UK class action litigation in 2026 is no longer optional — it is essential. The year has brought the first fully contested collective action trial victory at the CAT (in Kent v Apple), the first major opt-out collective settlement (in Merricks v Mastercard, approved for £200 million), and the largest group action ever heard in England — the BHP Mariana dam litigation, involving over 620,000 claimants and claims valued at £36 billion. Alongside these headline cases, the UK government’s commitment to reversing the PACCAR ruling that had chilled litigation funding since 2023 signals a filing rebound in 2026 and beyond. This article brings together the most current, verified data from official UK judicial sources, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and authoritative legal records to give you the complete 2026 picture.
Interesting Facts About Class Action Lawsuits in the UK 2026
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Total value of CAT collective action claims | Exceeded £160 billion by the start of 2025 |
| CAT collective proceedings — 10-year total (2015–2025) | Over 60 cases registered; approximately half certified |
| New collective actions filed in 2024 (full year) | 11 new collective actions registered |
| New opt-out claims filed in CAT by Aug 2025 | Only 2 new opt-out claims — reflecting PACCAR chilling effect |
| Cases certified by CAT (total) | Over 20 collective actions certified as of early 2025 |
| Cases not certified (total) | 15 claims refused or failed certification |
| Over 90% of CAT collective actions | Filed on an opt-out basis |
| Merricks v Mastercard settlement (2025) | £200 million — first major CAT collective settlement approved |
| Original value of Merricks claim | £14 billion — settled for less than 2% of original claim |
| Class size in Merricks | 44 million UK consumers; estimated per-person payout £45–£70 |
| BHP Mariana dam litigation | 620,000+ claimants; claims valued at £36 billion; liability found Nov 2025 |
| Kent v Apple — first trial win (Oct 2025) | Damages estimated at £1.5 billion; first opt-out claim to succeed at trial |
| GLOs issued in High Court since 2001 | 125 total GLOs; 16 issued between 2001 and 2024 alone |
| UK — world ranking in litigation funding | Second-largest litigation funding market globally |
| Global litigation funding market size (2025) | Estimated at over USD $20 billion globally |
| Rightmove class action (2025 funding agreement) | Innsworth Capital agreed to fund a £1 billion opt-out competition claim |
| CAT judgments handed down (2023/24 year) | 78 judgments — a 25% increase on the prior year |
| Pan-NOx emissions litigation | Liability trial ran Oct–Dec 2025; closing submissions March 2026; damages trial Oct 2026 |
Source: Competition Appeal Tribunal Annual Report 2023/24; Frontier Economics UK Competition Litigation Review (January 2026); Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning 2026; Skadden Insights (October 2025); CAT judgment records; Clifford Chance Group Litigation Outlook 2026
The facts table above captures the sheer breadth and scale of UK class action litigation in 2026. The figure that most demands attention is the £160 billion+ total value of claims before the CAT — a sum that dwarfs the GDP of many nations and reflects just how aggressively claimant representatives and their litigation funders have embraced the CAT’s opt-out collective proceedings regime since its inception under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Of the 60+ cases registered in the CAT’s first decade, around half have been certified — a meaningful pass rate, though the 15 cases refused certification make clear that the CAT does not rubber-stamp every claim that reaches its door. The certification refusal in Christine Riefa CRL v Apple in January 2025, on grounds of an unsuitable class representative, was the first such refusal on those specific grounds and sent an important market-wide signal.
The contrast between the scale of claims and the actual sums paid out tells a critical story. Merricks v Mastercard — the UK’s first and most high-profile collective settlement — resolved a £14 billion claim for just £200 million, or under 2% of its original value, with only £100 million ring-fenced for the 44 million eligible consumers. This gap between headline claims and actual recovery will be a defining tension in UK class action jurisprudence through 2026 and beyond. Meanwhile, the £36 billion BHP Mariana dam litigation — involving over 620,000 claimants and declared one of the largest group actions ever heard in England — has already secured a landmark liability finding in November 2025, with a damages quantum trial set for October 2026. The potential compensation in that case alone could redefine the practical ceiling of group litigation in this jurisdiction.
CAT Collective Proceedings: Case Volume & Certification in the UK 2026
CAT Collective Proceedings — Cases Registered vs. Certified (2015–Jan 2026)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total Registered (10-year) │████████████████████████████████ 60+
Certified │████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ~30
Refused/Failed Certification│████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 15
Pre-certification (pending) │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 15
New filings 2024 (full yr) │████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 11
New filings by Aug 2025 │█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 2
└───────────────────────────────────────
(Source: Competition Appeal Tribunal; Frontier Economics Jan 2026;
Morrison & Foerster August 2025)
| CAT Collective Proceedings Metric | Data |
|---|---|
| Total cases registered (2015–Jan 2026) | Over 60 cases |
| Cases certified to proceed | Approximately 30 (around half of all registered) |
| Cases refused or failed certification | 15 cases (includes 6 water cases heard together) |
| Cases at pre-certification stage (Jan 2026) | 15 cases still awaiting certification |
| New collective actions — full year 2024 | 11 new collective actions filed |
| New opt-out claims — to Aug 2025 | Only 2 new opt-out claims registered |
| Proportion filed on opt-out basis | Over 90% of all CAT collective actions |
| Claims filed as standalone (not follow-on) | Majority — most are standalone, not following a prior infringement decision |
| CAT judgments in 2023/24 reporting year | 78 judgments — up 25% year-on-year |
| CAT annual budget (2024/25) | £5,437,000 grant-in-aid from the Department for Business and Trade |
Source: Competition Appeal Tribunal Annual Report & Accounts 2023/24; Frontier Economics UK Competition Litigation: The Cases That Shaped 2025 and What’s Next (January 2026); Morrison & Foerster UK Class Action Landscape Mid-Year 2025 (August 2025)
The CAT’s case volume statistics reveal both the ambition and the growing pains of the UK’s decade-old opt-out collective proceedings regime. The 60+ cases registered across ten years represents a remarkable surge — particularly given that the CAT was primarily conceived as a competition law enforcement body, not a mass consumer litigation forum. The fact that over 90% of claims are filed on an opt-out basis demonstrates that claimant representatives and their funders prefer the mechanism that captures the widest class without requiring individual sign-ups, maximising potential aggregate damages and therefore funder returns. The dominance of standalone claims — the majority of which are not follow-on from an existing regulatory infringement decision — reflects how claimant lawyers have engineered novel competition law theories specifically to access the CAT’s opt-out mechanism.
The 2025 filing slowdown is stark and important: after 11 new collective actions in the full year 2024, only 2 new opt-out claims were registered in the CAT by August 2025. Legal analysts at Frontier Economics and Morrison & Foerster directly attribute this to the chilling effect of the 2023 PACCAR Supreme Court ruling, which rendered many litigation funding agreements unenforceable — creating existential uncertainty for the funders who bankroll the vast majority of these claims. With the UK government announcing its intent to legislatively reverse PACCAR and the Court of Appeal’s Sony v Neill ruling in 2025 providing an interim path for reformulated funding agreements, legal experts widely forecast a rebound in CAT filings in 2026, as pent-up claims and newly funded cases re-enter the queue.
Landmark UK Class Action Settlements & Judgments in 2026
Key UK Collective Action Cases — Claim Values vs. Settlements (where applicable)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
BHP Mariana Dam │ Claim: £36bn │ Liability: FOUND (Nov 2025) │ Damages: Oct 2026
Kent v Apple │ Claim: ~£1.5bn│ Liability: WON (Oct 2025) │ Damages: pending
Merricks v Mastercard │ Claim: £14bn │ Settlement: £200m (Feb 2025)│ Dist. pending
Newman v Rightmove │ Claim: £1bn │ Status: funded; filing 2026 │
Neil v Sony (PS Store) │ Claim: TBC │ Trial: March 2026 │
Pan-NOx Emissions │ Claim: TBC │ Liability trial: Oct–Dec 2025│ Damages: Oct 2026
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
(Source: CAT case records; Clifford Chance Feb 2026; Slaughter & May Horizon 2026)
| Case | Claim Value | Status in 2025–2026 | Key Fact |
|---|---|---|---|
| BHP Mariana Dam (Município de Mariana v BHP) | £36 billion | Liability found Nov 2025; damages trial Oct 2026 | 620,000+ claimants; largest group action heard in England |
| Kent v Apple | ~£1.5 billion | Liability won Oct 2025 — first opt-out claim to succeed at trial | First fully contested CAT trial victory under opt-out regime |
| Merricks v Mastercard | Original £14 billion | £200m settlement approved Feb 2025 | Settled at under 2% of original claim; £100m for 44m consumers |
| Newman v Rightmove | £1 billion | Innsworth Capital agreed to fund; announced 2025 | UK’s largest online property portal now defendant |
| Neil v Sony (PlayStation Store) | Not yet quantified | Trial commenced March 2026 | Allegations of excessive pricing in PS Store ecosystem |
| Pan-NOx emissions litigation | Multi-billion | Liability trial Oct–Dec 2025; closing submissions Mar 2026 | Damages trial Oct 2026 if required |
| Le Patourel v BT | Claims valued in hundreds of millions | Dismissed at trial — excessive pricing not proven | CAT: competition law is not a “general law of consumer protection” |
| Gutmann v LSER (Boundary Fares) | Settled (earlier proceeding) | Claims dismissed — no abuse of dominant position found | First full settlement approved for prior related action; <1% of class claimed |
Source: Competition Appeal Tribunal case records; Clifford Chance Must-Watch Group Litigation 2026 (February 2026); Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning Class Actions 2026; Squire Patton Boggs BHP analysis (December 2025); Governance & Compliance Magazine, December 2025
The 2025–2026 period has produced a genuinely mixed picture for UK class action outcomes. On one hand, the landmark liability finding in Kent v Apple — the first opt-out collective action to succeed at full trial under the CAT regime — was a seismic moment. The CAT found that Apple abused its dominant position in the iOS App Store through excessive commission pricing and tying practices, with damages now estimated at around £1.5 billion for UK iOS users. This ruling validated the entire CAT opt-out regime’s viability for claimants and is expected to accelerate further big-tech-focused collective actions. Apple has signalled its intent to appeal to the Court of Appeal in 2026, and the damages quantification phase will be closely watched.
On the other hand, two major CAT cases were dismissed at trial — Le Patourel v BT (excessive pricing not established) and Gutmann v LSER (boundary fares practice not found to be an abuse of a dominant position) — with the CAT explicitly noting that competition law is not a “general law of consumer protection”. These dismissals serve as a reality check: not every consumer grievance translates into an anticompetitive abuse, and the CAT has shown it will scrutinise substance as well as procedure. For 2026, the BHP quantum trial in October and the progression of Neil v Sony are the most anticipated proceedings — each with the potential to establish new precedents on damages methodology in large-scale group claims.
Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) in the UK High Court 2026
GLOs Issued in the English High Court Since 2001 (Cumulative)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2001–2010 │██████████████░░░░░░░░ ~50 GLOs
2011–2020 │█████████████████████░ ~40 GLOs
2021–2024 │█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ~16 GLOs
Total │████████████████████████████████ 125 GLOs (all-time)
└───────────────────────────────────────────────
(Source: Skadden Insights "Class Actions by the Backdoor", October 2025)
| GLO / High Court Group Action Metric | Data |
|---|---|
| Total GLOs issued in England since 2001 | 125 GLOs |
| GLOs issued 2001–2024 (recent reference period) | 16 GLOs (subset quoted in major 2025 legal analyses) |
| BHP Mariana Dam — number of claimants | Over 620,000 — largest group action by claimant count in English legal history |
| BHP Mariana Dam — claim value | £36 billion |
| BHP Mariana Dam — liability judgment | 14 November 2025 (High Court; BHP denied permission to appeal at first instance) |
| BHP Mariana Dam — damages trial scheduled | October 2026 |
| River Wye environmental group litigation | ~4,000 claimants against Avara Foods, Freemans of Newent and Welsh Water; filed October 2025 |
| Shell climate litigation (Philippines) | Issued December 2025 in the English High Court; alleges Shell contributed to Typhoon Odette |
| “Dieselgate” emissions litigation | Involves thousands of claimants; claims valued in the billions |
| Securities class actions (follow-on) | Claims filed against Serco and Glencore; Glencore trial listed October 2026 |
Source: Skadden Arps “Class Actions by the Backdoor” (October 2025); Squire Patton Boggs BHP analysis (December 2025); Clifford Chance Class Actions Outlook 2026 (January and February 2026); Business & Human Rights Resource Centre BHP case tracker
The Group Litigation Order is the workhorse of mass litigation in the English High Court — and while it lacks the elegant opt-out mechanism of the CAT regime, it has delivered some of the biggest and most consequential group actions in UK legal history. The BHP Mariana dam case is the defining example of 2025–2026: over 620,000 Brazilian individuals, municipalities, and businesses pursued their claims through the High Court rather than the CAT precisely because the damage arose from environmental harm, not a competition law infringement. The November 2025 liability judgment against BHP — which found the company strictly liable as a “polluter” under Brazilian Environmental Law — marks the first time a UK-domiciled parent company has been found liable for the actions of an overseas subsidiary in the English courts, setting a precedent that will reshape how multinationals assess their litigation exposure globally.
Beyond BHP, the GLO and joint-claim landscape in 2026 encompasses environmental, climate, securities, product liability, and financial mis-selling claims that collectively illustrate how the UK mass litigation market has diversified well beyond competition law. The River Wye environmental group action, filed in October 2025 and involving nearly 4,000 claimants alleging nutrient and sewage pollution, and the Shell Philippines climate claim, filed in December 2025 alleging corporate contribution to typhoon damage, are representative of the new generation of ESG-driven group litigation that is expected to proliferate through 2026 and beyond. Legal analysts at Clifford Chance predict that “the UK may become a forum for group litigation in respect of climate change in the near future” — a prediction that already appears to be materialising.
UK Litigation Funding & the PACCAR Effect in 2026
Impact of PACCAR Ruling on CAT Claim Filings vs. Recovery Trajectory
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Pre-PACCAR (2022) │████████████████████ High filing rate
PACCAR ruling (Jul 2023)│ ↓ PACCAR shock — funding uncertainty
2023 filings │████████████████████ 13 new CPO claims
2024 filings │████████████ 11 new collective actions
2025 (to Aug) │██ 2 new opt-out claims — historic low
Post-Sony v Neill │→ Confidence returning; PACCAR reversal pledged
2026 forecast │████████████████████ Filing rebound expected
└─────────────────────────────────────────────
(Source: Morrison & Foerster Aug 2025; Winston & Strawn Jan 2026; ICLG 2026)
| Litigation Funding & PACCAR Metric | Data |
|---|---|
| UK Supreme Court PACCAR ruling | July 2023 — held that many litigation funding agreements were unenforceable Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) |
| Effect on CAT claims — 2023 | 37% drop in new Commercial Court claims; group actions saw 23% decline vs. recent averages |
| Court of Appeal response — Sony v Neill (2025) | Confirmed that funding agreements calculated as a multiple of funder outlay (not % of damages) are NOT unenforceable DBAs |
| UK Government pledge | Announced commitment to legislatively reverse PACCAR to restore pre-2023 enforceability |
| Civil Justice Council (CJC) review | Published recommendations in June 2025; recommended light-touch regulation and clearer disclosure practices |
| Global litigation funding market size (2025) | Over USD $20 billion globally (projected CAGR ~9–10% through 2032–2035) |
| UK market status | Second-largest litigation funding market in the world |
| Rightmove — new opt-out claim funding | Innsworth Capital announced funding of £1 billion opt-out competition claim against Rightmove |
| Innsworth return in Merricks v Mastercard | CAT awarded funder a return on investment of 1.5x (50% of Pot 2 of £45.5m) |
| Funder’s expected return in original Merricks LFA | Anticipated return of approximately £400 million (8x investment) — dramatically reduced by settlement |
Source: R (PACCAR Inc.) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28; Winston & Strawn January 2026; Morrison & Foerster August 2025; ICLG Class & Group Actions UK 2026; Dechert LLP Litigation Funding Analysis (May 2025); Merricks v Mastercard CSAO judgment (May 2025)
Third-party litigation funding is the engine without which the UK’s collective action boom would not exist — and the PACCAR ruling of July 2023 was the most disruptive event to hit that engine in the regime’s history. By ruling that litigation funding agreements whose returns were calculated as a percentage of damages constituted unenforceable Damages-Based Agreements, the Supreme Court effectively destabilised the financial model that had underpinned the majority of CAT collective actions. The consequence was immediate and measurable: new CAT opt-out filings collapsed to just 2 by August 2025, the lowest sustained filing rate since the regime’s inception.
The dual path to recovery involves both legislative and judicial action. The Court of Appeal’s 2025 ruling in Sony v Neill confirmed that funding agreements expressed as a multiple of the funder’s committed outlay — rather than a percentage of damages — remain enforceable, providing an immediate structural workaround. Simultaneously, the UK government’s pledge to legislatively reverse PACCAR has injected strategic confidence back into the funding market. The £1 billion Rightmove claim funding by Innsworth Capital, announced in late 2025, is the most visible evidence that appetite for large-scale CAT investment has not disappeared — it was merely dormant, waiting for legal clarity. With the UK retaining its position as the world’s second-largest litigation funding market and the global market projected to grow at a CAGR of approximately 9–10% through the next decade, the structural incentives for funding UK collective actions remain powerful.
Key Sectors Driving UK Class Action Lawsuits in 2026
CAT & High Court Group Actions by Sector — Activity Level (2025–2026)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Digital / Big Tech │█████████████████████████ Very High (Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony)
Environmental / ESG │████████████████████████░ Very High (BHP, Shell, River Wye)
Financial / Banking │████████████████░░░░░░░░░ High (Mastercard, Visa, interchange fees)
Transport / Emissions │████████████████░░░░░░░░░ High (Pan-NOx diesel, Rail fares)
Securities / FSMA │████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Rising (Serco, Glencore)
Property │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Emerging (Rightmove, Housebuilders)
Consumer Products │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Active (Samsung, earplug veterans)
└────────────────────────────────────────
(Source: Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, Frontier Economics 2025–2026)
| Sector | Active / Notable Cases | Trend in 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Digital / Big Tech | Kent v Apple (won); Neil v Sony (trial Mar 2026); Google Play Store; Amazon Buy Box; Le Patourel v Apple & Amazon (announced) | Dominant sector — most active in CAT |
| Environmental / ESG / Climate | BHP Mariana dam (£36bn); River Wye pollution (4,000 claimants); Shell Philippines climate claim (Dec 2025) | Fastest growing sector of group litigation |
| Financial Services / Competition | Merricks v Mastercard (settled £200m); Visa/Mastercard interchange merchant claims (ongoing) | Settled landmark case; merchant claims continue |
| Transport / Emissions | Pan-NOx diesel emissions; Rail fares (Gutmann v LSER dismissed; other rail claims continue) | Diesel liability trial ongoing; key 2026 rulings expected |
| Securities / FSMA claims | Serco; Glencore (trial Oct 2026); Wirral v Indivior (representative claim rejected by Court of Appeal 2025) | Growing pipeline; investor class actions rising |
| Property / Real Estate | Newman v Rightmove (£1bn opt-out claim); McLaren v UK Housebuilders | Newly announced; expected CAT filings 2026 |
| Consumer Products / Mass Tort | Combat earplugs (veterans claim); defective medical devices | Following US multi-billion-dollar mass tort templates |
Source: Clifford Chance Group Litigation Outlook 2026 (January & February 2026); Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning 2026; Frontier Economics January 2026; Competition Appeal Tribunal case register (as at January 2026)
The sectoral distribution of UK class action activity in 2026 tells the story of where corporate accountability battles are being fought most fiercely. Digital and big tech is by far the dominant sector in the CAT: Apple alone faces multiple collective proceedings, and the successful outcome in Kent v Apple has effectively opened a litigation highway for claims against other large platform businesses. The CAT’s willingness to find abuse of dominant position in digital markets — complex and previously under-litigated territory — demonstrates a judicial competence and appetite that will encourage further filings against global technology giants operating in the UK.
Environmental and ESG group litigation has emerged as the most rapidly expanding new frontier. The combination of the BHP dam liability ruling (establishing parent-company liability for overseas environmental damage), the River Wye pollution claim (domestic environmental nuisance at scale), and the Shell Philippines climate claim (associating corporate emissions with specific weather event damage) signals that UK courts are being established as a preferred international forum for cross-border environmental mass claims. The reputational and financial exposure for corporations with significant environmental footprints — particularly those with UK-listed parent entities — has materially increased as a result of these 2025–2026 developments. For 2026, the October BHP damages quantum trial and the Glencore securities liability trial represent the two single most consequential proceedings on the UK collective action docket.
Certification & Class Representative Standards in UK 2026
CAT Certification Outcomes Since Regime Launch (2015–Jan 2026)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Certified │████████████████████████░░░ ~30 (approx. 50% of registered)
Refused certification │████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 15 (incl. 6 water cases together)
Withdrawn │████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 2 (including first-ever claim filed)
Stayed / paused │██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ At least 1
Pre-certification │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 15 (as of Jan 2026)
└────────────────────────────────────────────
(Source: Frontier Economics Jan 2026; Morrison & Foerster Aug 2025)
| Certification Metric | Data / Outcome |
|---|---|
| Total CAT cases certified | ~30 (approximately half of all registered) |
| Cases refused certification | 15 (including 8 outright refusals, 6 water cases heard together) |
| Cases withdrawn | At least 2 (including very first case filed under the regime) |
| Riefa v Apple — first PCR suitability refusal | Jan 2025 — CAT refused certification; class representative not independent or robust enough |
| Costs order against class in Riefa | ~£3 million costs ordered against the proposed class |
| Supreme Court — Evans v Barclays Bank | December 2025 — examined factors for opt-in vs. opt-out certification basis |
| CAT approach post-2025 | “More critical approach” to certification; stricter scrutiny of PCR suitability, methodology, cost-benefit analysis, and limitation |
| Grounds for recent refusals | PCR independence (Riefa); statutory preclusion (Roberts); class definition / methodology (PRS); limitation (Gutmann Handsell) |
| Defendants challenging certification | Certification challenges made in at least a third of proceedings to date |
Source: Morrison & Foerster UK Class Action Landscape 2025 (August 2025); Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning Class Actions in England and Wales 2026; Frontier Economics January 2026; CAT judgment records
The certification stage of UK collective proceedings operates as the critical gatekeeping mechanism between a filed claim and a fully live collective action — and 2025 demonstrated that this gate is not simply a formality. The 15 refusals and failures at certification across the regime’s history represent a meaningful check on speculative or poorly constructed claims. The January 2025 refusal in Riefa v Apple was particularly significant: the CAT declined to certify a £490 million opt-out claim because the proposed class representative, Professor Riefa, was found to lack the independence and robustness required to act fairly on behalf of the class. The CAT further ordered approximately £3 million in costs against the class — a substantial deterrent against poorly prepared certification applications.
The December 2025 Supreme Court judgment in Evans v Barclays Bank added a further dimension to the certification landscape by examining the legal test for deciding whether a case should be certified on an opt-in or opt-out basis. Given that over 90% of CAT collective actions have been issued opt-out, any judicial recalibration of when opt-in is more appropriate would have significant structural consequences for the regime. The direction of travel heading into 2026 is towards more rigorous, not less rigorous, certification scrutiny — with the CAT in particular subjecting class representative suitability, methodological robustness, cost-benefit analysis, and limitation issues to close examination before granting the collective proceedings orders that open the door to full opt-out litigation.
Disclaimer: The data research report we present here is based on information found from various sources. We are not liable for any financial loss, errors, or damages of any kind that may result from the use of the information herein. We acknowledge that though we try to report accurately, we cannot verify the absolute facts of everything that has been represented.
