header-logo header-logo

CAT advice when calculating costs

30 July 2025
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Collective action , Litigation funding , Competition
printer mail-detail
People bringing collective actions should always instruct costs specialists to help them scrutinise their lawyers’ fees, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has declared

The CAT gave the guidance while approving two collective actions against Amazon worth nearly £4bn in total. It made instructing independent costs specialists a condition of that approval, adding that this should become the ‘standard approach in collective proceedings’, in Robert Hammond v Amazon.com, Inc & Others; Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.com Inc & Others [2025] CAT 42, handed down last week.

Both class representatives, Stephan and Hammond, committed to having a costs professional review their future interim invoices.

David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘Class representatives are understandably heavily reliant on their lawyers in cases as big and complex as these, but with so much money on the line, the tribunal recognised the importance of them having independent advice to ensure that their costs—which ultimately come out of the class’s damages in the event of success—are rigorously policed.

‘Costs lawyers are the people to do this.’

Stephan is bringing a £2.7bn opt-out claim, arguing Amazon abused its dominant position when supplying marketplace services to third-party sellers. The funder is providing backing of up to £33m. Hammond’s £1bn claim, which has a litigation budget of £20m, alleges Amazon used its ‘Buy Box’ to suppress competition. Amazon disputes the allegations.

The CAT panel, chaired by Mr Justice Roth, noted Stephan’s funding agreement provided he would ‘review’ invoices and, at the reasonable request of the funder, seek to have them assessed.

‘We recognise that these provisions provide some protection against unreasonable fees,’ it said. ‘However, we think it is important that [Stephan], independently, should be in a position to subject claims for costs to proper scrutiny. The funder’s interests are not identical to those of the class because, if the action results in recovery for the class, the funder’s expenditure on costs will be reimbursed out of the sum recovered, potentially at the expense of the class.’

The CAT said it was similarly ‘concerned that there should be effective control of costs’ in Hammond’s case.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll