Mass Claims 2023 nr. 2

R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal

Anna Dannreuther and Gareth Shires1

Case note: 2023 UKSC 28

On 26 July 2023, the UK Supreme Court ("UKSC") handed down its judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal ("Paccar"). The case concerned litigation funding agreements ("LFAs") pursuant to which the funder was entitled to a percentage of any damages obtained. The issue was whether these constituted 'damages-based agreements' ("DBAs") and therefore had to comply with formal requirements set out in the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 ("DBA Regulations"). It was common ground in the case that the LFAs did not comply with such formal requirements and, as such, would be rendered unenforceable if the UKSC found they needed to so comply.

The UKSC held that such LFAs were indeed DBAs. The main consequences of this were twofold: (i) every single such LFA i...

U heeft op dit moment geen toegang tot de volledige inhoud van dit product. U kunt alleen de inleiding en hoofdstukindeling lezen.

Wanneer u volledige toegang wenst tot alle informatie kunt u zich abonneren of inloggen als abonnee.


Verder in dit artikel:

Case note: [2023] UKSC 28

1. The chequered history of DBAs and litigation funding in the UK

2. Paccar

3. The UKSC's Decision

3.1. How did the Court make its decision?

3.1.1. The majority decision

3.1.2. The dissenting judgment

4. The impact of PACCAR

Deel deze pagina:

Nog niet beoordeeld

Bijlage(n)

  • Bijlagen zijn alleen beschikbaar voor abonnees.

Artikel informatie

Type
Artikel
Auteurs
Anna Dannreuther and Gareth Shires1
Auteursvermelding
Ik ben auteur van dit artikel
Datum artikel
Uniek Den Hollander publicatienummer
UDH:MC/17967

Gerelateerde inhoud

Vrij gevonden op trefwoorden:

third party funding, Damages Based Agreements, DBAs, Supreme Court of the UK, PACCAR, Neill

Verder in 2023 nr.2

 Mass Torts and Mass Claims Litigation, Next Gen?

The UK and EU, among other countries, have been diligent and avid students of United States mass tort and mass claim litigation.  Papers abound on whether there are good American litigati...

 Collective Redress in Germany and the Transposition of the Representative Actions Directive

Germany is known to be hesitant and sometimes even reluctant when it comes to collective redress and has been somewhat late to the party. Is this also true when it comes to the transposition of the...

 Collective Redress in Slovenia:

Selected Topics and Related Opportunities For Improvement Although the Slovenian Collective Actions Act was adopted in 2017,[2] no collective action for damages pertaining to consumer rights has ye...

 Residue Funding:

Re-allocating Excess Funds to Fund New Class Actions   This article introduces and analyses residue funding, a funding method for class actions that allocates the possible residue awarded after win...

 Interview with Prof. Georg E. Kodek, the new President of the Austrian Supreme Court

        Ianika Tzankova (IT): Professor Kodek, or should I say Judge Kodek? The first time I came across your name and your profile was in 2002-2003 in the context of the fundamental review of the...

 Airbus and TikTok: developing contours of judicial assessment of funder influence and funder fees in Dutch collective actions

Case Note: The Hague District court 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:14036 (Airbus) and Amsterdam District court 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6694 (TikTok) 1. Introduction This duo of ...

 R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal

Case note: [2023] UKSC 28 On 26 July 2023, the UK Supreme Court ("UKSC") handed down its judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal ("Paccar"). The case concerne...

 Country reports

England and Wales, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain   England and Wales Anna Dannreuther  Case law R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal ...