R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) (Appellants) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (Respondents)
Case ID: 2021/0078
Are litigation funding agreements pursuant to which the funder is entitled to recover a percentage of any damages recovered "damages-based agreements" (known as "DBAs") within the meaning of the legislation which regulates such agreements?
The issue arises in the context of applications to bring collective proceedings for breaches of competition law. By a decision dated 19 July 2016, the European Commission found that five major European truck manufacturing groups, including DAF, infringed competition law.
On the basis of the Commission decision, the Road Haulage Association Limited and UK Trucks Claim Limited each sought an order from the Competition Appeal Tribunal authorising them to bring separate collective claims for damages on behalf persons who acquired trucks from DAF and other manufactures. RHA and UKTC have litigation funding agreements in place, under which the funder’s maximum remuneration is calculated by reference to a share of the damages ultimately recovered in the litigation. DAF contends that these agreements constitute damages-based agreements with the consequence that they are unenforceable because they do not comply with the requirements for DBAs. If that is so DAF would contend that RHA and UKTC do not satisfy the requirements for being authorised to bring the collective proceedings.
DAF’s argument that the agreements were DBAs was rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal and a Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice on judicial review (the Court of Appeal having held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the CAT in such a case). DAF now appeals directly to the Supreme Court.
PACCAR Inc and others
Competition Appeal Tribunal and others
Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose
Hearing start date
16 February 2023
Hearing finish date
16 February 2023