This week, a hearing was held to determine whether a collective action against five car carriers based in Japan, Sweden, and Chile. The action will allege that more than 17 million cars were impacted by a price-fixing scheme run by the five firms that ship internationally. The case is being funded by Woodsford Litigation Funding.
A legal claim seeking compensation worth up to £73m for routine overcharging on train tickets affecting an estimated 3.2 million passengers has been filed against the operator of one of Britain’s busiest commuter railway networks.
As difficult as it might be to imagine someone being misled by a Tinder communique, Sean Rad, a co-founder of the app, alleges that’s exactly what happened. Last week, Rad testified that Match Group (which also owns Hinge, OKCupid, and PlentyOfFish) undervalued Tinder by billions.
A Supreme Court decision was handed down in the Lloyd v Google appeal. And Google has a lot to be celebrating. In short, the question at hand was whether damages could be sought in a collective action over “loss of control over data,” without specifically listing the monetary or punitive damages of each individual claimant. Requiring individual loss statements from every claimant in a case impacting millions seems untenable. What happened here?
Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces the delivery of an award in favour of the funded party in an international arbitration, under the LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) rules. The arbitration, seated in London and brought under the rules of the LCIA was for the determination of a construction dispute relating to a development in the Middle East.
Can a marketing rep of average financial means successfully mount a civil case against a billionaire? A few decades ago, probably not. But now that third-party legal funding is on the scene, a complex civil suit is finally reaching the trial phase after years of delays.
London’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has given the green light to rail passengers to seek compensation for overcharging by the Southeastern and South Western rail franchises by not making ‘boundary fares’ sufficiently available to consumers. In a judgment delivered today, the Tribunal has ordered that the claims, issued on behalf of millions of rail passengers, can now proceed to trial. The standalone claim was the first of its kind to be filed in the UK and is estimated to be worth around £93m in damages for rail users.
Several franchisees that have agreements with Priceline, a leading HBA retailer in Australia, have opted into a class action to obtain a new, fair, franchise agreement with the company. The suit alleges that current agreements may be illegal under the current legislative framework.
Three men from Chorley and one from Leyland are suing auto giant Mercedes over its role in “dieselgate.” Dieselgate impacted multiple car manufacturers, accusing them of using defeat devices to illegally skirt emission standards. National consumer rights firm Slater and Gordon are bringing the claim.
The Competition Appeals Tribunal has granted permission for a class action against British Telecommunications to move forward. The action could be worth as much as GBP 600 million, and asserts rampant overcharging of landline customers. The action is being funded by third-party funder Harbour Litigation Funding.
Three Warrington men are bringing a claim against German carmaker Mercedes, relating to its role in the recent dieselgate scandal. Working with lawyers from consumer rights firm Slater and Gordon, the trio expects the case to become a collective action. Slater and Gordon is also a joint lead attorney in the dieselgate action against Volkswagen.
The Supreme Court of Victoria declined to allow a 25% contingency fee. The decision represents the first time the court has used its power to make a Group Cost Order—which the court determined was preferable to a “no win, no fee” arrangement.
Follower Notices have been in use since 2014, and refer to a notification given to someone who has used an “avoidance scheme” that was determined to be ineffective by a case against another user. This gives taxpayers an opportunity to adjust or amend their tax filings. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) issues these notices frequently, which is considered controversial for a variety of reasons.
Claimants in the Flint water crisis case have been cautioned by a judge not to seek or accept deals for a cash advance on their share of the settlement. Claimants are set to share the $641 million settlement, though the agreement has not yet been given final approval.
Six banks based in China have avoided liability in their role in the Nike Counterfeit case. The banks were cited for failing to freeze the assets of several hundred counterfeiters of Nike goods. Together, the banks faced sanctions of up to $150 million.
