1. Executive summary
Distribution of damages or settlement sums in collective proceedings has been a hot topic in the UK over the last couple of years, with the CAT determining distribution arrangements in some collective settlements, and distribution playing out in the first set of proceedings in which class members had an opportunity to claim. The CAT has also demonstrated a renewed focus on distribution at the certification stage.
In this article, after providing an overview of the legislative framework against which distribution is determined by the CAT, we consider:
- How the CAT approaches distribution at the certification stage, and how this has changed over time and been informed by its experience of determining distribution at the tail end of proceedings.
- How the CAT has dealt with distribution in the few cases to have reached that stage (as things stand, these have all been collective settlements).
- The recent launch by the Department for Business and Trade of a consultation which has, as one of its focuses, “swifter and simpler competition redress”, and consults on proposals for improving take-up rates.
We then conclude by highlighting the key takeaways emerging from these developments and setting out our views on the likely future trajectory for distribution in collective proceedings, including the possible impact of the legislative reform that now appears to be on the horizon.
2. Overview of the legislative framework
The legislative framework for distribution in competition collective proceedings is contained in Section 47C of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) and Rules 92 – 94 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (the “CAT Rules”). Unless otherwise stated, any references below to a ‘Rule’ refer to the CAT Rules.
Relevance of distribution at the certification stage
At certification stage, there are two statutory conditions that the CAT must be satisfied are met by the proposed proceedings:
- The ‘authorisation condition’: whether it is just and reasonable for the proposed class representative (“PCR”) to act as a representative of the class in the proposed proceedings (s. 47B(8) CA98); and
- The ‘eligibility condition’: whether the claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law such that they are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings (s. 47B(6) CA98).
As will be illustrated by one of the judgments we consider below in section 3, the CAT’s consideration of the authorisation condition includes the appropriateness of the PCR’s distribution plan and agreement struck between the PCR, their funder and other stakeholders for the distribution of any award/settlement amount as between them and the class members, as well as the PCR’s understanding and ability to justify those arrangements.
We also explain below how distribution arises in relation to the CAT’s scrutiny of the eligibility condition. The CAT Rules, which further flesh out the requirements of this condition, provide that the CAT should consider (amongst other things) “the costs and benefits of continuing the collective proceedings” and “whether collective proceedings are an appropriate means for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues”. The CAT has used this to rationalise its consideration of the likely take-up rates at certification stage, as part of the mandated cost/benefit analysis.
Assessment of damages
The CAT has the power to award aggregate damages without assessing the amount of damages recoverable in respect of each represented person (s. 47C(2) CA98).
Where it makes an aggregate award of damages, it shall make directions for assessment of the amount that may be claimed by individual represented persons (i.e. the class members) out of that award (Rule 92). The rules prescribe a list of different directions the CAT may give in this regard, including a method or formula by which such amounts are to be quantified, and/or a requirement that the apportionment of the award between represented persons be approved by the Tribunal (Rule 92(2)(a) – (d)).
Distribution of the award
When making an award of aggregated damages in opt-out proceedings, the CAT shall make an order providing for the damages to be paid to the class representative (“CR”) or to “such person other than a represented person as the Tribunal thinks fit” (Rule 93(1)). In opt-in claims, the CAT has a discretion as to whether it makes such an order (Rule 93(2)).
Following the making of an aggregate award of damages, the CAT has discretion (under Rule 93(4)) to direct that all or part of any undistributed damages be paid to the CR to reimburse them for their litigation costs and expenses. Subject to any such direction, the CAT shall order that all or part of the undistributed damages be paid to a designated charity (currently the Access to Justice Foundation) (s. 47C(5) CA98 and Rule 93(6)).
Collective settlement
Where a collective proceedings order has been made and the proceedings have settled (requiring a collective settlement approval order from the Tribunal), Rule 94 governs the distribution of damages instead.
As part of making its determination of whether the settlement terms are “just and reasonable” for the purposes of considering whether to approve a proposed collective settlement, the CAT must take account of numerous factors which are relevant to distribution, including any provisions made in the settlement agreement regarding the distribution of any unclaimed balance (Rule 94(9)).
This is an area where a significant difference arises as between the distribution rules in a collective settlement and those that apply when the CAT has made an award of damages. Where there is a collective settlement, the CAT has discretion to endorse any settlement agreement provision that provides for unclaimed sums to revert to the settling defendant(s), and any such provision shall not of itself be considered unreasonable (Rule 94(9)(g)). Where there is an award of damages, reversion is off the table. This has at least the potential to incentivise settlements. However, there is no guarantee that the CAT will endorse a reversion mechanism in the settlement.
3. How the CAT approaches distribution at certification stage
As the opt-out collective proceedings regime has matured, the CAT has increased its focus on scrutinising distribution economics and potential take-up rates at certification stage, rather than leaving it all for after trial (or settlement). Recent decisions demonstrate the CAT’s determination to ensure that collective proceedings are certified only where it is satisfied that they are likely to deliver redress to class members.
Case 1266/7/7/16 – Merricks v Mastercard
At the initial certification stage of Merricks, the CAT refused to grant a CPO, in part because of the proposed distribution methodology of the then PCR, Walter Merricks, for his interchange fees claims. He had proposed distributing any aggregate damages award to class members on a per capita basis (determined by the number of years a class member was resident in the UK during the relevant period), irrespective of their individual card usage or spend.
The CAT held that the distribution scheme failed to reflect the compensatory principle, because it bore no relation to the actual individual loss suffered by each class member. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the CAT, which led to Mastercard appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decided that the CAT had been wrong to require that the distribution methodology must consider the loss suffered by each individual member of the class. The Court held that a central purpose of the power to award aggregate damages is to avoid the need for individual assessment of loss, and the application of the compensatory principle is not essential in relation to the distribution of damages.
The Supreme Court also held that it was premature for the CAT to evaluate the PCR’s proposed distribution methodology at certification stage. The Court noted that, in many cases, the selection of the fairest distribution method will naturally be deferred until the size of the class, and the amount of the aggregate damages are known.
Case 1602/7/7/23 – Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited
In Riefa, the CAT took the unusual step of declining to certify proposed proceedings on account of its concern that the PCR gave the impression of not really understanding the funding arrangements and had failed to demonstrate that she could act as a robust and independent advocate for the interests of the class. In view of this, the CAT held that the statutory ‘authorisation condition’ for certification, which requires that the CAT be satisfied that it is “just and reasonable” for the PCR to act as CR, was not met.
At a hearing, the CAT and defendants had taken issue with certain provisions of the litigation funding agreement that provided for the funder’s return which, in the Tribunal’s view, “seemed inimical to the interests of the class” as they involved the funder being paid out ahead of the class and potentially receiving all of the recovered sums, leaving nothing for the class.
In a supporting witness statement, the PCR had incorrectly stated that the funder would be paid from unclaimed damages if the proceedings were successful, contrary to agreed funding terms. In the face of those criticisms at an earlier hearing, the PCR renegotiated the relevant funding terms and obtained a better deal for the class. However, the Tribunal had a lingering concern that she had entered into the original terms on the basis of a critical misunderstanding and apparently without making efforts to identify better terms or alternative sources of funding.
The Riefa decision illustrates that the CAT expects PCRs to understand distribution from the outset and, if necessary, defend the agreement they have struck with the funder in respect of their position in the distribution waterfall. In these respects, the agreement on distribution, and how it was approached by the PCR, can at certification stage be treated by the CAT as a bellwether for the overall suitability of the PCR.
Case 1643/7/7/24 – Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Ors
Waterside was another rare example of the CAT refusing to certify proposed proceedings, again with distribution central to its reasoning. The decision marks a more stringent approach to assessing distribution at certification stage.
The proposed £382 million opt-out claims alleged that major Atlantic salmon producers unlawfully colluded to inflate wholesale prices and that those overcharges were passed on to an estimated 35–44 million UK consumers.
The PCR’s proposed litigation budget exceeded £20 million. It transpired at the hearing that it had agreed various success and other contingent fees, not detailed in its litigation budget, including success fees for its solicitor and counsel teams and contingent after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance premia of up to £19.4 million (excluding tax). When weighed against the modest estimated individual loss per household (of between £3.10 and £16.91), the CAT characterised these litigation costs as “inexplicably high”.
In evaluating whether the proposed proceedings met the statutory ‘eligibility condition’, which requires the CAT to be satisfied that the claims are eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings, the CAT analysed expected distribution take-up rates. The CAT held that this was relevant to the eligibility condition because the condition requires it to consider whether the claims are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings (Rule 79(1)(c)), and, as part of that, it shall take into account all matters it thinks fit, including “the costs and benefits of continuing the collective proceedings” and “whether collective proceedings are an appropriate means for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues” (Rule 79(2)(b) and (c)).
The CAT noted that even assuming an award of damages at the level claimed for by the PCR, the sum per class member would be relatively small, and yet the class member would face the burden of taking a proactive step by filling in a form to claim from the distribution pot.
When considering the expected distribution take-up rates, the CAT referred to the actual data on take-up rates from the Boundary Fares litigation (which we consider in further detail below), where there was very low take-up. The CAT concluded that under realistic distribution assumptions and considering the level of litigation costs that the PCR was budgeting for, the vast majority of any aggregate damages award would be swallowed up by legal fees and funder returns, rather than reaching consumers.
In light of the fact that the PCR could not demonstrate that the likely benefits to the class were proportionate to the costs of the litigation, certification was refused.
Despite this in-depth analysis of distribution at certification stage, the CAT considered that its approach was consistent with what the Supreme Court had held in Merricks because of the immediate concerns raised by the PCR’s proposed distribution methodology in terms of its effectiveness in ensuring distribution to class members. On this basis, it considered it necessary to grasp the nettle to mitigate the risk of the poor outcome in Boundary Fares being repeated.
4. How the CAT has approached distribution
While more than 30 opt-out collective proceedings have been certified by the CAT, only a handful of cases have reached the distribution stage. Those cases provide valuable insight into how the CAT exercises its supervisory function when it comes to undistributed funds and stakeholder returns.
Boundary Fares
The Boundary Fares litigation (already mentioned above) represents the first time that class members have received compensation since the opt-out collective proceedings regime was introduced in 2015.
In May 2024, the CAT approved a £25 million collective settlement between the CR, Justin Gutmann, and one of the defendants, Stagecoach South West Trains. In May 2025, the CR reported to the CAT that, despite two separate distribution pushes, less than 0.86% of available funds had been claimed by the class.
The CAT then listed a ‘Stakeholder Entitlement Hearing’ in September 2025 to determine how to allocate the remaining £9.98 million of unclaimed, non-ring-fenced settlement funds. It indicated that it would consider whether to make an order requiring a substantial amount of the undistributed balance be awarded to charity.
At the hearing, the CAT expressed that the level of uptake had been “extremely disappointing”. The CR had incurred costs of over £18 million, but only 7,290 valid claims were made by class members, amounting to £216,485. This level of uptake fell significantly short of the level predicted by the CR (10% to 20% of class members).
The CAT’s ruling following the hearing did not feature a post-mortem as to what had gone wrong. There was some limited discussion to that effect at the hearing: the CR suggested that eligible class members may have been put off from claiming out of concern that the notice of their entitlement to claim might be a scam and indicated that it might be helpful to have a centralised form of distribution website for CAT awards, noting that this was an extrajudicial matter.
Whilst the settlement agreement did not provide for a payment to charity, following the Tribunal’s indication about an award being made to charity, it was agreed between the CR, the funder and insurer ahead of the hearing that the Access to Justice Foundation should receive a payment of £4 million, less the amount of distribution to class members. The CAT was of the clear view that this was “sensible and just”, stating that the payment to charity “will go some way towards mitigating the extremely disappointing distribution rates achieved in this case”.
The sum remaining for distribution amongst the stakeholders was £6.2 million. In the circumstances, notwithstanding what the litigation funding agreement provided for, the CAT determined the following distribution to be reasonable and proportionate:
- £1.29 million to be paid to the CR’s funder, which was significantly less than the circa £7 million payment the funder was contractually entitled to, on account of the very poor take-up by class members;
- £0.43 million to be paid to the CR’s ATE insurers (significantly less than the £1.26 million contingent premia payable on a successful outcome and set at a level which provided the ATE insurers with “an overall level of return comparable to the Funder”); and
- £4.48 million to be paid to solicitors and counsel (significantly less than the deferred fees and success fees they were contractually entitled to).
The CAT was critical of the stakeholders for “an air of unreality in the positions taken by [them] as to what sums that [sic] would be reasonable and proportionate for each of them to be awarded”. In the final paragraph of the judgment, the CAT stressed that “[t]here are certainly lessons to be learned, if not already learned, in terms of the management and settlement of collective proceedings”. In observations explicitly directed at those beyond the courtroom, it warned that “[a]t the CPO stage and certainly at the CSAO stage more work in the future needs to be done on likely take up of settlement amounts by class members and how any damages may be distributed”.
Case 1266/7/7/16 – Merricks v Mastercard
In its judgment of 20 May 2025 on the parties’ joint application for a collective settlement order to approve a settlement payment by Mastercard in the amount of £200 million, the CAT had to grapple with novel and difficult issues in relation to distribution.
One factor that loomed large was the relative failure of the claim – the parties settled for about 1% of the original headline claim value (£14 billion). Although the CAT was satisfied that the £200 million settlement was just and reasonable given the chequered history of the case – including adverse judgments for Mr Merricks on limitation and causation – it scrutinised the evidence on the merits of the claim were it to continue.
Another exceptional factor was the bitter row between Mr Merricks and his funder, Innsworth Capital, over his agreement to the settlement against the funder’s wishes. Innsworth was represented at the hearing to consider approval of the settlement, where it strongly opposed the settlement.
Out of the £200 million settlement sum, the settlement agreement provided for three pots:
- Pot 1: One half of the total amount, i.e. £100 million, to be ring-fenced for class members.
- Pot 2: Approximately £46 million ring-fenced as a minimum return to the funder, calculated as comprising the costs, fees and disbursements paid by the funder (net of any recovery by way of adverse costs awards against Mastercard).
- Pot 3: An amount equal to Pot 1 minus Pot 2, i.e. approximately £54 million, to be made available to give the funder its return, subject to any further sums that need to be used to top-up payments to class members in the event that more than 5% of them claim.
Although Innsworth’s primary position was that the settlement should not be approved, it made submissions on distribution in the event that it was. It argued that the costs that it had incurred, or was liable for, were to be deducted from the settlement balance and reimbursed; the remaining balance was to be used to meet claims of class members; what remained after that was to be paid to Innsworth, subject to it receiving a maximum of £179 million (inclusive of its reimbursed costs); and if there was anything left at the end, that amount would go to charity.
The CAT held that it could amend the distribution arrangements but still approve the settlement, which is what it proceeded to do.
In respect of Pot 1, it held that the £100 million would be distributed to class members on a per capita basis, with the level of payment flexing depending on the rate of take-up but subject to a cap of £70. If far more class members than expected make claims, thereby significantly reducing the amount that would be distributed on a per capita basis, then the £100 million could be topped up to some extent from Pot 3. Any unclaimed balance would be given to charity.
In reaching that decision, the CAT had to consider the level at which individual claims would be made and the likely take-up rates. The settling parties adduced a report from a public relations consultancy, which had carried out an opinion survey of about 5,000 eligible class members. This suggested that if class members were told that their individual recovery was likely to be £45 but could be as low as £2.50 (if every eligible class member claimed), then it was plausible that around 10% would claim. That level of take-up would entail a distribution of £22.50 per class member.
The CAT was clear that the exceptional factors in play had driven the outcome on distribution, and it therefore warned against its judgment being used as a “guide for more positive settlements”. However, it follows that it is instructive for cases such as Merricks that have a poor outcome from the class perspective.
However, that was not the end of the matter. Innsworth went on to judicially review the CAT’s decision. The central issue before the Divisional Court, which heard the judicial review, was whether the CAT had acted unlawfully in determining the distribution of the settlement proceeds and, in particular, whether it had afforded appropriate weight to the funder’s contractual interests.
Dismissing the challenge, the Divisional Court held that the CAT had been entitled to approach the issue on the basis that collective proceedings are a statutory regime that “should operate for the benefit of [class members] and not primarily for the benefit of lawyers and funders”. Its judgment will serve as a cautionary tale for funders in respect of the uphill battle they may face in challenging a collective settlement distribution decision.
Case 1339/7/7/20 – McLaren v MOL
In rulings in 2023 and 2025, the CAT approved settlements between the CR, Mark McLaren, and defendant groups in collective proceedings relating to roll-on, roll-off car shipping.
In respect of the first ruling, it is notable that the CAT held that seeking to distribute funds immediately following the settlement, while the remainder of the proceedings remained ongoing, would be “unnecessary, complex and cost-inefficient” and instead ordered that distribution to class members would occur at the conclusion of the entire collective proceedings, or when the CR can demonstrate that distribution is “economical, proportionate and in the interests of the class.”
In its most recent ruling, the CAT considered whether the settlement sums (£24.5m for the first defendant group and £12.75m for the second) were ‘just and reasonable’. It remarked that success can be measured in a number of ways, and ‘success’, as defined for the purposes of a funding or conditional fee agreement is not necessarily a success for the class as a whole. The CAT indicated that when approving collective proceedings settlements, it will assess whether the proceedings have been a success overall, including by looking at the amount of damages available to class members, the likely and actual take up by the class, and what may happen to undistributed amounts (in terms of reversion or payment to charity).
Both proposed settlements included a form of upfront sum (referred to as “Immediate” or “Guaranteed” damages) and a deferred sum (“Deferred” or “Additional” Damages). In the case of the first settling defendant group, the “Deferred Damages” only become payable upon notification by the CR of a shortfall in damages due to class members, whereas in the case of the second settling defendant group, the “Additional Damages” were payable at the same time as the “Guaranteed Damages” subject to the reversion of any unused portion of the “Additional Damages” back to the defendant.
The CAT stressed that it would not have approved the proposals had it not been for the clear ring-fencing of a minimum class members’ entitlement. It was also clear that it would not approve any clawback mechanism which allowed stakeholders to recover costs, fees and disbursements out of pots ring-fenced for class members. In fact, the CAT took the unusual step of requiring “Stakeholder Undertakings”, from both the CR and its funder’s lawyers, that unrecovered costs at the end of proceedings would not be reimbursed from the “Immediate Damages” and “Guaranteed Damages” pots, which would remain ring-fenced for class members. Recognising concerns raised by the CR’s funder about delay being suffered (and associated financing costs being incurred) by the funder in awaiting payout from the case, the Tribunal did however grant stakeholders liberty to apply for payment.
Case 1382/7/7/21 – Consumers’ Association v Qualcomm Incorporated
On 10 June 2026, the CAT handed down a judgment approving a proposed settlement between the Consumers’ Association (commonly known as Which?), acting as CR, and Qualcomm. The proceedings had been brought on behalf of approximately 29 million UK consumers who had purchased smartphones and sought around £480 million in damages.
The proceedings were certified by the CAT in 2022 in the face of opposition from Qualcomm, who argued that Which?’s expert’s methodology was inadequate and that the costs of the proceedings would outweigh the benefits. The claims proceeded to a liability trial, which the CAT heard between October and November 2025. However, before the CAT delivered judgment, the parties jointly applied for a collective settlement approval order. Under the proposed settlement, Qualcomm would make no payment to class members, and each party would bear its own costs.
A key feature of the judgment is the assessment by the CAT of the merits of the claim following trial. Which? informed the Tribunal that, having heard the evidence and considered the parties’ arguments, it had concluded that it faced substantial difficulties in establishing that Qualcomm’s practices had infringed competition law, resulted in inflated royalty payments, and caused consumers to pay higher prices for smartphones.
The judgment is the first occasion on which the CAT has approved a ‘drop hands’ settlement in collective proceedings.
The decision confirms that the CAT is in principle prepared to approve a settlement which provides no compensation to class members whatsoever where, following scrutiny of the merits, it concludes that continued litigation is unlikely to produce a better outcome for the class.
5. DBT Consultation
On 17 July 2026, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) launched a consultation titled ‘Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement’, which builds on the DBT’s earlier Call for Evidence regarding opt-out collective actions in Autumn 2025.
The consultation recognises that the opt-out collective regime was intended to provide a meaningful route to redress for consumers (and small businesses), and that its success can be measured by returns seen by class members. Although the DBT states that it is too early to make that assessment fully, it considers that the aspiration of the regime must be to achieve a greater rate of returns to class members than the take-up rate in Boundary Fares.
The DBT proposes that greater weight should be given to the cost/benefit analysis at certification stage (including the likely take-up rate), noting that Waterside is the only example of the CAT refusing certification on the basis of this criterion not being met.
The DBT is also consulting on ways to increase consumer trust and encourage take-up. It considers that take-up rates are likely to increase as awareness of the regime grows. It noted that consumer trust is an issue, and that consumers, who are alive to the risks of fraud and scams, are understandably unwilling to take what they may perceive as a risk in handing over their financial details to facilitate payment of what may be a relatively modest sum.
One specific proposal that the DBT is seeking views on to improve consumer trust is listing claims on the CAT website with links to live claim websites to enable class members to confirm their legitimacy and encourage take-up. The consultation also asks respondents to share their ideas for other ways to increase trust among class members and to incentivise a collaborative approach between parties to maximise distribution.
The DBT noted that the CAT had already taken the step of setting up a case page on its own website listing the collective proceedings where an award of damages has been ordered or a collective settlement approved, which could be used by class members to confirm the legitimacy of a distribution outreach communication.
The consultation also addresses litigation funding arrangements, including a proposal to lift the prohibition on damages-based agreements (DBAs) in opt-out collective actions following the Supreme Court’s decision in Paccar v CAT [2023] UKSC 28.
Of most relevance to the issue of distribution is a proposal to introduce a presumption into the CAT Rules that funders receive their return at the point of a damages award being ordered or a settlement sum being approved, without needing to wait for the outcome of distribution. The DBT’s proposal is that the CAT would retain discretion on the order of distribution where there is a demonstrable risk that applying the presumption would result in an unjust outcome.
The DBT also proposes distributing some or all of the undistributed sums to activities that benefit consumers through making a distribution to the Consumers’ Association, rather than the Access to Justice Foundation.
The consultation also sets out the DBT’s ambition that more creative and collaborative approaches to distribution between the parties will emerge, noting specifically the benefit of a defendant paying directly to class members due to the likely increased trust in communications sent by a company that class members already have a relationship with and the existing ability of a company to easily access contact and payment details for their customers.
6. Key takeaways and where next
The judgments considered above show how the CAT has so far been grappling with distribution in difficult cases – the poor outcomes from the class perspective in Merricks and Qualcomm, and the woefully low take-up rate in Boundary Fares. We have no guidance yet on how the CAT will approach distribution where things have gone to plan for the CR.
We can expect, and are already seeing, the CAT approaching distribution at the certification stage through the prism of those difficult cases. The Waterside judgment is an example of the CAT scrutinising distribution methodologies at an early stage, for the purposes of certification, with its experience of dealing with distribution at the tail end of proceedings very much in mind. Its decision not to certify – a rare outcome – sends a clear message to CRs and other stakeholders that the CAT’s expectations are set high and that lessons need to be learned. The CAT will not permit cases to proceed if they look like they could follow the same path as Boundary Fares.
The proposals from the DBT to put the consideration of likely take-up rates on a statutory footing (or at least include it in the CAT Rules) are a further reason for thinking that Waterside will not be a one-off, and that the cost/benefit analysis at certification stage will feature more prominently in certification decisions going forward.
The design of the distribution plan is therefore likely to receive greater attention in proposed proceedings in the pre-certification stage. Riefa underscores the need for PCRs to take a hands-on approach and be prepared to explain and defend the details of their distribution plan. In some cases, the CAT is likely to expect PCRs to adduce evidence in support of their application as to the likely take-up rate and the outcome for stakeholders under different scenarios.
The focus is likely to be felt most in proposed proceedings where, as in Waterside, the case economics are such that class members would only receive a modest amount in the event of success. There is a particular need for PCRs in such cases to ensure that their litigation budget, which the CAT will weigh in the balance against the likely benefits of the proposed proceedings, is appropriate and proportionate.
The case economics problem was compounded in Waterside by the fact that the proposed class members were indirect purchasers, such that the defendants had no contractual relationship with the class. members Achieving distribution in such cases will likely rely on class members taking a proactive step to claim what they are entitled to. However, if the amount on offer is small, there will be little incentive for them to do that, and it seems likely an outcome similar to Boundary Fares would be repeated.
In proceedings where there is a contractual relationship between the class members and the defendant, CRs may be able to design distribution plans with a direct credit mechanism that would require the defendant to credit the class members’ accounts (or their bank accounts, using the details held on their account) and therefore remove the need for class members to take steps. This obviously has the potential to produce very high take-up rates. The CAT has made supportive comments before about this as a possible mechanism for distribution, although its jurisdiction to order anything to that effect is yet to be tested.
Finally, given that the CAT’s supervisory function (what the Court of Appeal has called the “vigilant gatekeeper role”) continues post-certification, it is also possible that we will see distribution being revisited for proceedings that have already been certified, whether as a result of a challenge from a defendant or on the CAT’s own initiative.