Phillip Gwyn James Evans v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors

Phillip Gwyn James Evans v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors

The CAT erred in certifying the proceedings on an opt-in basis by treating its provisional view on the merits as determinative and failing to give proper weight to evidence showing opt-in was impracticable and would deny access to justice. The CAT should have certified the proceedings as opt-out aggregate damages claims. The CAT did not err in its approach to carriage or in declining to strike out the claims at this stage. The matter is remitted to the CAT for further case management, including consideration of the implications of the PACCAR decision on litigation funding.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Phillip Gwyn James Evans; Respondents: Barclays Bank PLC & Ors; Respondent/appellant: Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited; Respondents: MUFG Bank, Ltd and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; opt-in certification set aside; proceedings remitted to CAT for opt-out aggregate damages certification and further case management; all other appeals dismissed; permission for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Collective Proceedings, Class Actions, Cartels, Opt In/opt Out Certification, Strike Out Applications, Carriage Disputes, Litigation Funding, Access to Justice
Competition Law Civil Procedure Collective Proceedings Class Actions Cartels Opt In/opt Out Certification Strike Out Applications Carriage Disputes +2 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Phillip Gwyn James Evans

Appellant

Barclays Bank PLC & Ors

Respondents

Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited

Respondent/appellant

MUFG Bank, Ltd and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CAT erred in certifying collective proceedings on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis
  2. 2 Whether the CAT applied the correct legal test for strike out and certification
  3. 3 Criteria for choosing between rival class representatives (carriage)

Ratio Decidendi

The CAT erred in certifying the proceedings on an opt-in basis by treating its provisional view on the merits as determinative and failing to give proper weight to evidence showing opt-in was impracticable and would deny access to justice. The CAT should have certified the proceedings as opt-out aggregate damages claims. The CAT did not err in its approach to carriage or in declining to strike out the claims at this stage. The matter is remitted to the CAT for further case management, including consideration of the implications of the PACCAR decision on litigation funding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; opt-in certification set aside; proceedings remitted to CAT for opt-out aggregate damages certification and further case management; all other appeals dismissed; permission for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Set aside CAT's opt-in certification decision
  • Remit proceedings to CAT for opt-out aggregate damages certification