Blog
The proposed £4.5 billion class action against seven of the UK’s largest housebuilders is being presented as a victory for consumers. It is more accurately seen as another milestone in Britain’s rapidly expanding class action industry. The claim, which still requires certification by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that major housebuilders exchanged commercially sensitive information that inflated the price of new-build homes between 2015 and 2026. The allegations are denied, and the Tribunal has yet to decide whether the case can proceed collectively. Whatever the outcome, the case reflects a broader trend – almost every major regulatory investigation is now viewed as the starting point for mass litigation. A Growing Litigation Industry Collective actions were created to provide access to justice in exceptional circumstances. Increasingly, they have become commercial enterprises. Claimant law firms, litigation funders and claims-management businesses now have strong financial incentives to turn regulatory investigations into billion-pound lawsuits. The result is a system where litigation risks becoming an end in itself rather than a means of delivering justice. Duplicate Enforcement Competition regulators already have extensive powers to investigate markets, require changes in behaviour and impose substantial penalties where appropriate. Follow-on class actions often add years of costly litigation to issues that have already been addressed by regulators. Rather than improving compliance, they can create duplicate proceedings that consume judicial resources and prolong uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike. The Hidden Costs The costs of mass litigation do not stop with the companies being sued. Capital that could fund new homes, jobs or investment is diverted into legal costs and settlement reserves. Those costs ultimately ripple through the economy, affecting investors, pension funds and consumers. That is particularly concerning in the housing sector, where Britain urgently needs greater investment and increased supply. Who Really Wins? Consumers are promised compensation, but class actions frequently take years to conclude and generate significant returns for lawyers and litigation funders. Individual payments can be modest, while the litigation industry profits regardless of the outcome. That imbalance should prompt policymakers to ask whether the current trajectory genuinely serves the public interest. Britain Needs To Tread Carefully Businesses that break the law should be held accountable. Consumers who suffer genuine loss should receive appropriate redress. But that does not mean every regulatory investigation should become a multi-billion-pound collective lawsuit. Britain should focus on effective regulation, voluntary redress where appropriate and targeted legal action in genuinely exceptional cases. Otherwise, we risk importing a US litigation culture that discourages investment, increases costs and ultimately leaves consumers worse off. The real test of consumer protection is not how many class actions are filed, but whether markets become fairer, disputes are resolved more quickly and consumers receive meaningful remedies without creating a permanent industry built on litigation.
Read More →Blog
The Court of Appeal's dismissal of Blur drummer Dave Rowntree's £200 million collective action against PRS for Music is the latest reminder that ambitious class actions still need more than a compelling narrative and a large headline figure. Rowntree sought to bring proceedings on behalf of around 160,000 songwriters, arguing that PRS's treatment of "black box" royalties—payments that cannot be matched to individual works because of incomplete data—unfairly favoured music publishers over songwriters. The Court was unconvinced.
Read More →Blog
The Solicitors Regulation Authority's decision to bring disciplinary proceedings against two solicitors linked to the Post Office Horizon scandal is a reminder that the consequences of major litigation rarely end when the courtroom proceedings are over. The regulator has referred two solicitors to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over allegations arising from events after the Horizon scandal had become public and while the statutory inquiry was underway. One case concerns an alleged failure to cooperate fully with the inquiry, while the other relates to legal fees charged to a former sub-postmaster. The allegations will now be determined by the Tribunal, and no findings have yet been made.
Read More →Blog
The UK's employment tribunal judges have issued unusual guidance aimed at curbing a sharp rise in interim relief applications — a development they have linked, at least in part, to the growing use of artificial intelligence in claim preparation. Interim relief is one of the most powerful remedies available in employment law. If granted, it can require an employer to continue paying a dismissed employee until a full hearing takes place. Historically, such applications were rare. Judges now report a dramatic increase in their use, creating additional pressure on a tribunal system already struggling with significant backlogs.
Read More →Blog
A recent court ruling, reported by Solicitor News, has reinforced an important principle for claimants – solicitors cannot assume they are entitled to recover a success fee simply because a case succeeds. The decision highlights the courts' willingness to examine funding arrangements carefully and ensure that fees charged to clients are properly justified. For consumers involved in compensation claims, group litigation, or class actions, the ruling is a reminder to pay close attention to how legal costs may affect any eventual payout.
Read More →Blog
The UK's collective actions regime was intended to deliver compensation to consumers harmed by anti-competitive conduct. Yet another high-profile case has ended with no compensation, no admission of liability, and millions spent on legal fees. Last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal approved a "drop hands" settlement in the £480 million collective action brought by Which? against Qualcomm. Under the agreement, Qualcomm pays nothing, both sides bear their own costs, and the estimated 29 million consumers represented in the claim receive no compensation. The figures are striking. Claimant law firm Hausfeld had already received nearly £18 million in fees funded by litigation backers and has now written off a further £14 million in deferred fees. Counsel reportedly lost more than £1 million in unpaid fees, while Qualcomm's defence costs were said to be around £44 million.
Read More →
Independent information platform on class action risks, litigation funding structures, and claimant awareness.