Search
Gerry Facenna QC and Nikolaus Grubeck appeared for the Information Commissioner, Robert Palmer QC and Julianne Kerr Morrison appeared for the Open Rights Group.
Those familiar with Competition law will be aware that collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal are burgeoning. And it might have been hoped that the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the recent flurry of collective proceedings that have been certified by the Tribunal following the Supreme Court judgment in Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51, would have blazed a trail for collective redress in the United Kingdom – that where the Consumer Rights Act led, CPR Rule 19 might follow. There is a sore need in the UK for an effective mechanism for collective redress:
“…The mass production of goods and mass provision of services have had the result that, when legally culpable conduct occurs, a very large group of people, sometimes numbering in the millions, may be affected. As the present case illustrates, the development of digital technologies has added to the potential for mass harm for which legal redress may be sought.”
Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50, para 67
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 has provided much needed clarification of the scope of the representative action procedure in CPR Rule 19.6, and for some types of claim the way is now clear for claimants to seek collective redress in the High Court. For other types of claim, however, and for data protection claims in particular the judgment has severely curtailed the prospect of the common law providing a solution.
Please click here to read the full case note.
See news post from 10th November here.
The comments made in this case note are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.