At a time when the UK is experiencing a steady rise in collective actions and large-scale litigation, a warning from the president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal could not be more timely.

Mrs Justice Bacon’s caution against “Disneyfied” economic modelling highlights a growing concern about the role increasingly complex economic theories play in modern litigation. As collective proceedings become larger and more ambitious, damages claims are often built on sophisticated models that seek to estimate losses across millions of consumers or businesses.

While economic evidence undoubtedly has an important place in competition litigation, there is a danger that theoretical assumptions can become detached from commercial reality. Models are only as reliable as the assumptions that underpin them. If those assumptions are unrealistic, the resulting damages calculations can quickly become speculative.

The warning is particularly significant given the continued expansion of collective actions in the UK. Backed by claimant law firms and litigation funders, many claims now involve vast sums and affect entire sectors of the economy. In such cases, rigorous scrutiny of expert evidence is essential.

Courts exist to determine real-world disputes based on evidence, not hypothetical scenarios constructed in pursuit of ever-larger awards. The CAT president’s intervention serves as a valuable reminder that legal claims should be grounded in reality, not abstract economic exercises.

As the collective actions regime continues to mature, judicial scepticism towards overly simplistic modelling should be welcomed. It is an important safeguard against speculative litigation and a necessary check on the growth of an increasingly aggressive claimant industry.