When looking for those jurisdiction most amenable to class actions supported by litigation funders, the Netherlands remains at the top of the list, as has been demonstrated once again today by a court’s approval of a privacy claim brought under the WAMCA regime.

An article on DutchNews covers the news that an Amsterdam court has approved the approach of a Dutch foundation to bring a claim against Google over allegations that the tech company violated the privacy of Android phone users. The court ruled that the Stichting Massaschade & Consument meets the admissibility requirements of the Act on Collective Damages in Class Actions (WAMCA). The court’s approval of the foundation’s structure and its involvement of a litigation funder means that the parties can now move forward with the class action which has reportedly registered over 100,000 consumers since 2023.

According to the foundation’s website, the class action is being financed by Eaton Hall Funding LLC, with the agreement allowing for the funder to receive 17.5% of the proceeds after costs, if the claim reaches a settlement or favourable ruling. Rubicon Impact & Litigation, an Amsterdam-based law firm, is providing legal representation for the claimants.

Frank Peters, co-founder and head of impact & litigation at Rubicon, emphasised the importance of working with a litigation funder on the case, stating that “you need very deep pockets to expose what Big Tech is trying to hide.” He explained that working with this funder, “our client was able to expose what information Google takes from Android phones, even when you are careful with your privacy settings”, and that the court’s ruling “makes clear that it is perfectly fine that  class actions come about like this.”More information about the claim can be found on the foundation’s website.

When it comes to funded class actions, most attention is paid to those proceedings underway in the UK, US and Australia. However, a recent ruling from New Zealand’s highest court has once again highlighted its position as a welcoming jurisdiction for funders and plaintiffs pursuing these group proceedings.

In an article on Lexology written by Nina Blomfield, James Caird, Jania Baigent, and Alice Poole from Simpson Grierson, these litigators analyse the impact of a recent decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court to reject a challenge to common fund orders (CFOs) in class actions. The ruling handed down at the end of 2024 saw the Supreme Court deny ANZ and ASB’s application for leave to appeal a lower court’s decision, which had reaffirmed the courts’ ability to allow CFOs to be made at an early stage of proceedings.

The origin of this appeal came from a 2022 High Court ruling, which confirmed the court had the jurisdiction to make a CFO in a class action but also ruled that it was too early to make a CFO prior to the conclusion of the stage 1 hearing. Two years later, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision on jurisdiction and went a step further in ruling that CFOs being made at an early stage of the litigation was beneficial in furthering access to justice.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found that both lower courts had ruled correctly, and when it came to the issue of timing re-emphasised the importance of access to justice. The justices highlighted the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that “access to justice is best achieved through a CFO being made as early as possible in a proceeding”, which in turn “gives the litigation funder a degree of assurance in relation to its return on its investment”.

The authors describe this decision as “a significant win for litigation funders and class action plaintiffs” and highlight the courts’ repeated “strong focus on access to justice in representative proceedings.”

The Supreme Court’s full judgment on the application for leave to appeal can be read here.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has continued to dominate the legal funding headlines this week, as we have already seen two class actions commence at the Tribunal. However, a new judgment released yesterday provided an unexpected and disappointing result for another claim, as the Tribunal refused to certify the collective proceedings after raising concerns about whether the class representative “has the appropriate expertise and is supported by appropriate advice” to lead the claim.

Reporting by Reuters covers the decision by the CAT to deny certification for the collective proceedings brought by Professor Christine Riefa against Apple and Amazon, which alleged that the companies had colluded to remove resellers of Apple products and thereby inflate the prices of these products for consumers. The claim, which was valued at around £494 million, sought to represent a class size of over 36 million people, including any consumers who purchased Apple or Beats products from any retailer in the UK from 31 October 2018.

The decision to refuse the application for certification had its origins in the funding arrangements between Asertis and Hausfeld & Co to support the proceedings, and Prof Riefa’s ability as the Proposed Class Representative (PCR) to act in the interests of the class members balanced against the terms of the funding agreement.

The Tribunal’s judgment largely focused on the role of Prof Riefa as the PCR, and what they described as “considerable doubts about whether we could be satisfied that the PCR would fairly and adequately act in the interests of the class members, for the purposes of the authorisation condition.” The judgment provided a detailed account of the various iterations of the litigation funding agreement and the witness statements provided by the parties involved in the proceedings, with particular emphasis on Prof Riefa’s role as the PCR. 

At the centre of the judgment, was the CAT’s view on whether Prof Riefa had satisfied the authorisation condition, finding that when it came to the funding arrangements, she did not “have a good understanding” of both the “terms being offered” and “the overall context in which it is being advised”. In their conclusion to their assessment on the authorisation condition, the Tribunal’s panel said that their “key concern in this case is that Prof Riefa has not demonstrated sufficient independence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests of the class.”

As to the further implications that this ruling might have on other collective proceedings, the Tribunal emphasised that they were neither “seeking to impose any specific conditions on the types of PCRs that are put forward”, nor were they “seeking to impose specific obligations on future PCRs as to the manner in which funding arrangements are negotiated.” However, the judgment made clear that the CAT’s primary concern “is for each PCR to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that it is suitably qualified to act for the class, and that the manner in which it has approached the funding arrangements reflects sufficient regard to the interests of the class members.” The judgment made clear that Prof Riefa had not demonstrated that she met those requirements in the application for the CPO. 

More information about the case, Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others, can be found on the CAT’s website, with the full judgment available to read here

More information about the UK Apple and Amazon Claim can be found on its website.

As LFJ reported yesterday, the start of 2025 has seen a flurry of activity at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), with two major class actions backed by litigation funders going to trial this week.

An article in City AM covers the start of the trial in the Car Delivery Charges class action at the CAT marking the first time that a follow-on cartel proceedings has gone to trial in the UK. The claim, which began in 2020, focuses on allegations that five shipping companies acted as a cartel between October 2006 and September 2012, raising the cost of shipping new vehicles to the UK and Europe. The trial against the two remaining defendants, MOL and NYK, follows the CAT’s approval of a settlement with CSAV in December 2023, and separate settlements with WWL/EUKOR and “K” Line in December 2024. 

Mark McLaren, a former executive at consumer group Which?, is acting as the class representative on behalf of UK consumers and businesses who were overcharged for vehicle purchases. Scott+Scott has been instructed as the solicitors for the claim, with Woodsford providing the litigation funding for the class action. The counsel team for the trial includes Sarah Ford KC and Sarah O’Keefe from Brick Court Chambers, and Nicholas Gibson from Matrix Chambers.

Belinda Hollway, lead partner at Scott+Scott, emphasised that “this trial marks a very significant milestone in the case and is the culmination of five years of hard work and dedication.” Holloway also highlighted the CAT’s approval of the previous settlements in the case, which she argued “demonstrates the power of the UK opt out regime to secure compensation for class members”.

In a post on LinkedIn, Woodsford said that they are “proud to be supporting Mark McLaren in the landmark Car Delivery Charges class action trial”, and that they “remain committed to the consumers affected by the cartel with settlements, in respect of 3 out of the 5 cartelists, in excess of £38m having already been reached in the course of 2023 and 2024.”

The trial is provisionally expected to last for ten weeks, with the claimants seeking to achieve around £100 million in compensation from the two remaining defendants.

More information about the class action can be found on the Car Delivery Charges website.

Past orders, judgments, transcripts and notices in Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others can be found on the CAT’s website.

Whilst the new year is now in full swing and industry leaders are fully focused on their strategic priorities for 2025, it is still an apt time to recognise the work and achievements of law firms and litigation funders across the previous year.

The inaugural Chambers UK Awards is set to be hosted in London on Thursday 13 February. Building upon the firm’s work highlighting the world’s top legal professionals through its guides, Chambers' first annual awards event will celebrate the top legal teams across the UK. The awards categories cover a range of practices, from commercial disputes to international arbitration, with only a select few firms shortlisted for each award.

As part of this inaugural awards ceremony, Chambers will be honouring the top litigation funders in the UK and has already announced the five funders who are shortlisted for this award:

• Bench Walk Advisors 
• Harbour 
• Manolete Partners 
• Therium Capital Management 
• Woodsford  

Those firms selected have already been recognised in the 2025 Chambers UK Guide, with the awards recognising each legal team for their outstanding legal work and achievements, impressive strategic growth and excellence in client service delivery. The awards are not exclusive to national law firms, with teams shortlisted in the ‘Regional Firm of the Year’ and ‘Scottish Firm of the Year’ categories.

The inaugural event is already sold out, but the full list of firms shortlisted across each category can be found on the Chambers website.

Harvey and LawPage, two legal tech companies, are sponsoring the event.