Stephan v Amazon.com Inc & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 183 (26 February 2026)

Stephan v Amazon.com Inc & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 183 (26 February 2026)

The CAT did not err in law or exercise its discretion irrationally in certifying the class representatives and deferring scrutiny of the funder's return; no realistic conflict of interest was established within the class, and the Tribunal's evaluative judgment was supported by evidence and legal principles.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 183
Parties
Respondent/class Representative: Professor Andreas Stephan; Respondent/class Representative: Robert Hammond; Applicant/defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.; Applicant/defendant: Amazon Europe Core S.À. R. L.; Applicant/defendant: Amazon EU S.À. R. L.; Applicant/defendant: Amazon UK Services Ltd; Applicant/defendant: Amazon Payments UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal Decision Granting Collective Proceedings Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused in both cases.
Legal Topics
Collective Proceedings Orders, Litigation Funding, Class Representation, Conflict of Interest
Competition Law Civil Procedure Collective Proceedings Orders Litigation Funding Class Representation Conflict of Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Andreas Stephan

Respondent/class Representative

Robert Hammond

Respondent/class Representative

Amazon.com, Inc.

Applicant/defendant

Amazon Europe Core S.À. R. L.

Applicant/defendant

Amazon EU S.À. R. L.

Applicant/defendant

Amazon UK Services Ltd

Applicant/defendant

Amazon Payments UK Limited

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal Decision Granting Collective Proceedings Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal erred in certifying class representatives given litigation funding arrangements
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding no conflict of interest within the class in collective proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The CAT did not err in law or exercise its discretion irrationally in certifying the class representatives and deferring scrutiny of the funder's return; no realistic conflict of interest was established within the class, and the Tribunal's evaluative judgment was supported by evidence and legal principles.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused in both cases.

Orders

  • No permission to appeal; CAT's collective proceedings orders stand.