Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.Com, Inc & Ors

Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.Com, Inc & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT did not err in law or act irrationally in deferring detailed scrutiny of the funder's return under the litigation funding agreement to a later stage, as the CAT retains supervisory jurisdiction and discretion to review such arrangements. In Stephan's claim, the CAT was entitled to find no real conflict of interest within the class based on the evidence, and Amazon failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Both grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success.

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
Civil Appeal / Application for 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 Actions, Abuse of Dominant Position, Conflict of Interest
Competition Law Civil Procedure Collective Proceedings Orders Litigation Funding Class Actions Abuse of Dominant Position 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 3 Authorities cited 8 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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal erred in its approach to the reasonableness and timing of scrutiny of the litigation funding agreement in Hammond's claim
  2. 2 Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal erred in concluding there was no actual or potential conflict of interest within the class in Stephan's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT did not err in law or act irrationally in deferring detailed scrutiny of the funder's return under the litigation funding agreement to a later stage, as the CAT retains supervisory jurisdiction and discretion to review such arrangements. In Stephan's claim, the CAT was entitled to find no real conflict of interest within the class based on the evidence, and Amazon failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Both grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused in both cases.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused for Amazon in Hammond's claim.
  • Permission to appeal refused for Amazon in Stephan's claim.