Class Actions in England? Efficacy, Autonomy and Proportionality in Collective Redress

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Higgins ◽  
Adrian A. S. Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Class Actions ◽  
Collective Redress

Collective Access to Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Molavi
Keyword(s):  
Access To Justice ◽  
Transformative Change ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Collective Redress

At a time when the collective redress landscape is undergoing a period of transformative change, this important and timely research focuses on class actions in England and Wales. Aiming to promote access to justice, this pioneering work separates fact from fiction in an easily digestible way, offering progressive solutions for reform.

scholarly journals Are Class Actions Finally (Re)conquering Europe? Some Remarks on Directive 2020/1828

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 14-22
Author(s):  
Astrid Stadler
Keyword(s):  
Public Access ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Collective Interest ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
National Legislatures ◽  
Union Directive

The article provides a brief overview of the background of the new European Union directive on representative actions for protection of the collective interest of consumers (Directive 2020/1828). It describes the basic elements of the directive and explains the major changes that have occurred since the European Commission issued its Recommendation document on collective redress in 2013. The author highlights the issues of the scope of application of the directive, of legal standing to bring a representative action, of collective settlements, and of the problem of funding for collective actions. This discussion puts emphasis on the need to extend legal standing to individual members of the group and articulates an appeal to national legislatures, particularly in Germany, to be more open-minded towards commercial litigation funding and the establishment of a public access-to-justice fund designed to guarantee the effectiveness of Directive 2020/1828 and its implementation.

Funding of Collective Actions

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klára Hamuľáková
Keyword(s):  
Significant Influence ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Legal Costs ◽  
The Right

Summary The paper deals with the questions of funding of collective actions. Proper funding has significant influence on the right to the access to the court and is a precondition for the efficient course of litigation in general, specifically in connection with a collective redress. Funding of class actions is also closely related with other issues such as costs and lawyer’s fees, reimbursement of legal costs and moreover.

scholarly journals Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2013: Bogeymen, lunatics and fanatics: collective actions and the private enforcement of European competition law

Legal Studies ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Wardhaugh
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Authority Figures ◽  
European Competition Law

The European desire to ensure that bearers of EU rights are adequately compensated for any infringement of these rights, particularly in cases where the harm is widely diffused, and perhaps not even noticed by those affected by it, collides with another desire: to avoid the perceived excesses of an American-style system of class actions. The excesses of these American class actions are in European discourse presented as a sort of bogeyman, which is a source of irrational fear, often presented by parental or other authority figures. But when looked at critically, the bogeyman disappears. In this paper, I examine the European (and UK) proposals for collective action. I compare them to the American regime. The flaws and purported excesses of the American regime, I argue, are exaggerated. A close, objective examination of the American regime shows this. I conclude that it is not the mythical bogeyman of a US class action that is the barrier to effective collective redress; rather, the barriers to effective, wide-ranging group actions lie within European legal culture and traditions, particularly those mandating individual control over litigation.

scholarly journals The Devil is in the Scale: Revisiting the Commonality Requirement in Charter Class Actions

2019 ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Iryna Ponomarenko
Keyword(s):  
Class Action ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Counter Narrative ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
The Future ◽  
Commonality Analysis ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
The Devil

Even a cursory look at the literature reveals scant agreement among experts on the future of Charter class actions. In no small part, this uncertainty can be attributed to the divergent views among the courts concerning the proper contours of the commonality threshold for aggregate Charter proceedings. While the doctrinal narrative of Thorburn suggests that Charter rights are individual in nature and, thus, are not easily amenable to collective redress, the counter-narrative delivered by Good posits that in order for a Charter class action to pass the commonality hurdle of certification “it does not have to resolve all issues that may exist in terms of establishing liability.” Although it is easy to see Thorburn and Good as thesis and antithesis, the subsequent Charter class actions such as Murray can hardly be portrayed as a synthesis. Hence, uncertainty over the commonality standard reigns. Taking these observations as its guiding thread, this article makes a case for revisiting the commonality requirement in Charter class actions and argues that “over-individualization” of Charter rights that has been imputed into the analysis by Thorburn is unjustified on both descriptive and normative levels. Descriptively, such “over-individualization” is misguided because it semantically overpowers the analysis which, if properly conducted, would often reveal either no need for individual fact-finding at all or the possibility to follow the resolution of common issues with individual mini-trials. Normatively, overreliance on individualized inquiries as part of the commonality analysis is misguided because it misconstrues the very nature of the class action regime.

scholarly journals Private Antitrust Enforcement: A New Era for Collective Redress?

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 11-32
Author(s):  
Silvia Pais
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
New Era ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
The Eu

It will be argued in this article that the EU Recommendation on common principles for collective redress might have limited impact on the field of competition law due to: several uncertainties regarding the legal standing in class actions; difficulties in their funding; and the risk of forum shopping with cross-border actions. Nevertheless, Belgium and Great Britain have recently introduced class actions into their national legal systems and addressed some of the difficulties which other Member States were experiencing already. It will also be suggested that the Portuguese model – the ‘Popular Action’ – and recent Portuguese practice may be considered an interesting example to follow in order to overcome some of the identified obstacles to private antitrust enforcement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document