The Council of the EU and European Parliament have reached an historic agreement centred on individual animal welfare and traceability, effectively shutting the door on illegal pet trade with the adoption of the Union’s first-ever regulation on dog and cat welfare. Brendan McGurk KC was instructed by Four Paws in seeking to persuade the Commission as to the existence of and proper legal basis for, a regulation imposing mandatory identification and registration (“I&R”) requirements for all kept dogs and cats (with the exception of farm cats). That led, in 2023, to the Commission introducing a proposal for new rules on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats. The initiative sought to establish EU-wide minimum standards for the first time, covering – among other things – the accommodation, care, traceability and treatment of these animals.

The draft ‘Regulation on the Welfare of Dogs and Cats and their Traceability’, agreed on 25 November 2025 by the Council and the Parliament, sets out the first ever EU standards for the breeding, housing, traceability, import and handling of cats and dogs. This comprehensive traceability framework will allow animals to be tracked through official channels, facilitates the tracing of pets to their owners, and makes it far more difficult for illegal breeders and sellers to operate in the shadows. Robust measures will be introduced to regulate online sales. Under the mandatory registration-verification system foreseen, an animal’s due registration to the seller must be confirmed before any animal advertisement can go live, ensuring the advertised animals are reliably linked to those offering them. Currently, 79% of dogs come from unknown sources because no verification exists. This new upfront check will block illegal sellers and puppy mills, significantly reducing the online trafficking of pets.

Brendan’s advice has helped bring about the adoption, in particular, of Article 17 of the new Regulation, the terms of which are set out below. In essence it will require every cat and dog in the EU to be microchipped. It applies to privately-owned pets as well as breeders. Each chip carries a unique code that can be scanned and linked to the owner’s contact details, facilitating identification and traceability. Until now, microchipping has only been mandatory when pets travel between EU countries or enter the bloc. Until the new Regulation, national rules varied widely across Europe.

The Parliament press release:

“Article 17

Identification and registration of dogs and cats

1. All dogs and cats kept in establishments placed on the market or owned by per owners or by any other natural or legal persons, shall be individually identified by means of a single injectable transponder containing a readable microchip compliant with Annex II.

Operators shall ensure that dogs and cats born in their establishments are individually identified within 3 months after their birth and in any event before the date of their placing on the market.

Operators of selling establishments, shelters and operators responsible for dogs and cats in foster homes shall ensure that dogs and cats that enter their establishments or come under their responsibility are individually identified within 30 days after their arrival at the establishment and in any event before he date of their placing on the market.

The implantation of the transponder shall be performed by a veterinarian. Member States may allow the implantation of transponders by other persons than veterinarians provided that they have laid down rules on the minimum qualifications that such persons are required to have.

Dogs and cats which have been individually identified by means of an injectable transponder containing a microchip, in accordance with Union or national law before [the date of application of this Regulation] shall be considered compliant with the requirements in this paragraph, provided that the microchip is readable.”

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT“) has handed down its judgment in the so-called ‘Loyalty Penalties’ collective proceedings addressing (i) the certification application made by Mr Justin Gutmann, the Proposed Class Representative (“PCR“), and (ii) two sets of limitation strike-out applications made by all or certain of the Defendants, the four largest UK mobile providers (Vodafone, EE, O2 and Three).

In summary, the PCR alleges that the Defendants have overcharged customers who took out contracts for the supply of both airtime and a phone by continuing to charge customers the same monthly amount once the minimum term of their contract has expired. On that basis it is said that the customers have overpaid for their phone.

In a judgment dated 14 November 2025, the CAT held that it was satisfied that the threshold for certification was met and thereby granted the PCR’s application. However, it struck out all claims for damages arising before 1 October 2015 on the basis that they were time-barred. The CAT held that, under the transitional provisions of the Tribunal’s Rules 2015, rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Rules 2003 established a two year limitation period for standalone claims for damages for losses pre-dating 1 October 2015. The Tribunal’s decision is the first authoritative ruling on this legal issue. The decision has a significant impact on the claim value, as the PCR had claimed damages dating back to (at least) 2007.

The second limitation strike-out application was brought by certain of the Defendants in respect of all claims for damages arising between the period of 1 October 2015 to 8 March 2017, under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. This application contended that customers knew or could reasonably have discovered the key facts necessary to establish a worthwhile claim, applying the test established by the Court of Appeal in Gemalto Holdings BV and Others v Infineon Technologies AG and Others [2022] EWCA Civ 782. The relevant Defendants argued that customers knew or could have discovered the facts in question either because they were core commercial terms of the contract the customers had entered into, or because of publicity concerning the allegations on which the claims were based in a range of mainstream media articles. This application was refused, although the CAT emphasised that this did not reflect a conclusion on the ultimate merits of the limitation defence which was to be “fully traversed at trial“.

The CAT’s decision is available here.

Rob Williams KC and Jenn Lawrence appeared on behalf of Vodafone.

Will Perry acts for EE.

Daisy Mackersie acts for Three.

Gutmann v Stagecoach [2025] CAT 72

Last year the CAT approved the first consumer-facing settlement in a collective action, with that Settlement Decision reported here. Now the CAT has made the first post-distribution ruling between stakeholders in such a case. A link to that Stakeholder Decision is here. It deals with a number of interesting and by definition novel points, with questions left over for future cases and an emphasis on considering distribution earlier in these types of claims.

The Class Representative (CR) had secured a successful settlement on the eve of trial last year, but the take-up by class members upon distribution was disappointing. One consequence of this was that, after the majority of the funds had reverted to the settling Defendant, just under £10million remained in unclaimed damages for distribution between stakeholders against their costs and fees, these stakeholders including the funders, insurers and lawyers.

The first interesting aspect is that there was a payment to charity (the Access to Justice Foundation, intervening) agreed between the CR and the stakeholders in the sum of just under £4million. In the Settlement Decision the CAT had held it had no power to order a payment to charity upon settlement, but prior to the stakeholder hearing it had made clear its view that it expected such a payment. In any event, the parties agreed (in view of the low payout to the class). The Defendant did not object, but successfully resisted an application by the intervening funder that the Defendant should pay half the charitable sum. The CAT held it would not reopen the Settlement Agreement. Notably, the CAT did not revisit its power (or lack thereof) to order a payment to charity absent agreement. It did, however, indicate that in the future, the ability to pay sums out of unclaimed damages to charity or cy-près should be expressly covered in LFAs and settlements placed before it for approval.

Further interesting findings involved the distribution of the remaining funds. Under the funding agreements, most or all of the balance of the money would have gone to the funders, by way of a funders’ fee, there being insufficient funds to cover that and any outstanding legal and success fees. The CAT restated its supervisory jurisdiction at the point of distribution under section 47C(3) Competition Act 1998 and Rules 93 and 94 of the Tribunal Rules. It also relied on the fact that the ‘waterfall’ of payment priorities in the funding agreements was expressly “subject to any Order of the Court to the contrary”. The CAT accordingly rearranged the waterfall to achieve what it deemed a fairer, if rough and ready, distribution across all stakeholders, providing for a more modest additional return for funders and insurers and for further payments to solicitors and counsel, largely to cover deferred elements of their fees. The CAT did not have to (and thus did not) deal with situations where the funding agreements are either silent on the supervisory costs jurisdiction or even seek expressly to exclude such jurisdiction at the point of distribution, which may be a matter for future decisions.

Finally, another pointer for the future is that the CAT held that class representatives should provide more evidence as to distribution and likely take-up at the outset of claims, including relevant surveys of that interest of potential class members in claiming any compensation.

Philip Moser KC and Stefan Kuppen of Monckton Chambers acted for the Class Representative.

The Court of Appeal has re-affirmed that on an application for judicial review, there will be no breach of the principles of procedural fairness, even if a particular step has not been taken, where that has not resulted in any prejudice to the individual. In R (Singaram) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375, Lewis LJ repeated and applied the principle articulated in R (Save our Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 1227 (albeit, in that case, obiter). This remains an analytically distinct step from the question of whether (in the event of unfairness) relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In Singaram, the Claimant had been granted leave to enter the UK as a student, subject to working a maximum of 20 hours per week. Immigration enforcement officers established in interviewing the Claimant that he had been working in breach of that condition, but did not directly ask for representations on whether discretion should be exercised to curtail his leave. He complained that that was procedurally unfair.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court. The Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal and decided to hear the claim for judicial review itself. The Court dismissed the claim. Any failure to comply with the principles of procedural fairness by not making it clear to the claimant that he had an opportunity to make representations as to why his leave should not be cancelled immediately, or at a later date, did not in fact result in any prejudice. As a result of the questions that were asked during the decision-making process, the claimant had, in fact, provided the information that he wanted the decision-maker to consider when deciding whether to cancel his leave immediately. In the circumstances, there was no, or no material, breach of the principles of procedural fairness and certainly none that vitiated the decision.

The judgment is available here.

Robert Palmer KC and James Bourke acted for the Defendant, instructed by Government Legal Department.

 

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has issued its judgment on a preliminary issue in the class action Spottiswoode v Nexans and Ors [2025] CAT 68.

In May 2024, Clare Spottiswoode CBE was authorised to act as the class representative for electricity consumers in collective proceedings against several power cable companies.  The proceedings seek to recover damages for losses flowing through to electricity bills in Britian from the power cables cartel identified by the European Commission in 2014.  One aspect of Ms Spottiswoode’s claim, which accounts for a substantial proportion of the overall loss claimed, is the allegation that, as a result of the cartel, offshore windfarms paid increased prices for high-voltage power cables, which were then passed on to electricity suppliers (and ultimately consumers) via a Government scheme which sought to incentivise the generation of energy from renewable sources (the Renewables Obligation Scheme).  In particular, Ms Spottiswoode claims that two specific banding decisions in 2010 and 2013 under the Scheme were impacted by the alleged cartel overcharge, with the result that the cost of the ROC regime to UK electricity consumers was increased as a result of the cartel.

The CAT’s judgment follows a three-week trial that took place in May 2025 and focused on the impact of the alleged overcharge on the 2010 banding decision.  It finds that, even if cable prices were higher by (an assumed) 26% as a result of the cartel, the 2010 banding decision would not have been any different absent that overcharge and therefore the cost to consumers from that decision would have remained the same.

Ben Lask KC acts for the class representative.

Fiona Banks acts for one of the Defendants, Prysmian.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has handed down judgment in the class action Dr Rachael Kent v (1) Apple Inc. (2) Apple Distribution International Ltd [2025] CAT 67. The judgment summary can be found here.

The claim concerned purchases by users of Apple devices of iOS apps and in-app content (including subscriptions). The CAT concluded that Apple had abused its dominant position by foreclosing competition in the iOS app distribution services market and the iOS in-app payment services market, by tying its payment services for iOS in-app payments to the App Store, and by charging excessive and unfair prices in the form of the Commission that it charges developers for iOS app distribution services and iOS in-app payment services.

Apple charges a headline rate of commission of 30% to iOS app developers. The CAT found that developers had suffered an overcharge in the iOS app distribution services market of the difference between a Commission set at 17.5% and the Commission actually charged, and an overcharge in the iOS in-app payment services market of the difference between a Commission set at 10% and the Commission actually charged. It found that the rate of incidence at which developers passed on the overcharge to iOS device users was assessed at 50%.

The CAT therefore found that Dr Kent is entitled to damages in respect of the claims of class members, assessed on an aggregate basis. Finally, it found that Dr Kent is entitled to interest on those damages at a simple rate of 8%.

Dr Kent’s claim is the first collective action brought under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 to succeed at trial.

Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia Fitzpatrick (instructed by Hausfeld & Co. LLP), appeared on behalf of Dr Rachael Kent.

Earlier in proceedings, Ronit Kreisberger KC acted for the authorised class representative, Dr Rachael Kent, instructed by Hausfeld & Co. LLP.

Julian Gregory (instructed by the Competition and Markets Authority Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Competition and Markets Authority.

The case has been widely covered by the Lawyer, BBC, Financial Times, GCR and Scottish Legal News.

HMRC v Colaingrove Ltd [2025] UKUT 00360 (TCC)

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) has allowed HMRC’s appeal and dismissed Colaingrove Limited’s cross‑appeal concerning entitlement to additional discretionary interest under section 84(8) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (now repealed). The Tribunal set aside the First‑tier Tribunal’s earlier decision insofar as it had awarded additional interest, and dismissed all applications for further interest by Colaingrove.

The case concerned whether Colaingrove was entitled to discretionary interest under s.84(8) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA) in addition to statutory interest already paid by HMRC under s.78 VATA on VAT repaid by HMRC following the resolution of various appeals started between 2000 and 2013, in respect of accounting periods between 1989 and 2011. The appeals were against s.73 VATA assessments and s.80 VATA claims. Section 84(8) was repealed with effect from 1 April 2009, but continued to apply to certain appeals and decisions pursuant to the transitional and saving provisions of the Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009. The company sought over £8.2 million in additional interest, arguing that the statutory interest paid by HMRC did not reflect the true cost of borrowing incurred due to the overpayments.

The Tribunal allowed HMRC’s appeal on the core issue, ruling that s.84(8) VATA does not apply to repayments made following litigation of s.80 VATA claims. Sections 80 and 83(t) (now 83(1)(t), concerning appeals from refusals of s.80 claims) provide the exclusive statutory remedy and jurisdictional route for reclaiming overpaid VAT; and discretionary interest under section 84(8) is not available in such cases.

The Tribunal, upholding the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), also rejected Colaingrove’s submission on its cross-appeal to the effect that discretionary interest should be awarded in relation to appealable decisions made after the repeal of s.84(8) where those appealable decisions were based on in-principle liability decisions made before 1 April 2009. For the purposes of the TTF Order, a “decision” referred to an appealable decision concerning matters within s. 83 VATA which are adverse to an appellant.

The Tribunal rejected Colaingrove’s EU law-based arguments, concluding by reference to Littlewoods Limited v HMRC [2017] UKSC 70 that the statutory interest regime under UK law provides an “adequate indemnity” and complies with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

The Tribunal rejected Colaingrove’s appeal against the rate of the additional interest awarded by the FTT in respect of its appeals against assessments, holding that the rate was a matter of discretion for the FTT and that there was no error of law in its exercise of that discretion.

Philip Moser KC and Andrew Macnab appeared on behalf of HMRC.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision is available here.

The FTT’s decision is available here.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has handed down judgment in the class action Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited, London & South Eastern Railway Limited, Govia Thameslink Railway Limited & Others [2025] CAT 64.

The claim concerned the Defendants’ sale of a particular kind of rail fare known as a Boundary Fare. The CAT concluded that, on the assumption that the Defendants each holds a dominant position, none of the conduct alleged against them constitutes an abuse of that position. The CAT accordingly dismissed the claim.

All instructed counsel in these proceedings were members of Monckton Chambers.

Philip Moser KC, Stefan Kuppen, and Alexandra Littlewood (instructed by Hausfeld & Co. LLP and Charles Lyndon Ltd) appeared on behalf of Mr Gutmann.

Tim Ward KC, James Bourke, and Hugh Whelan (instructed by Slaughter and May) appeared on behalf of First MTR South Western Trains Limited.

Paul Harris KC, Anneliese Blackwood, Michael Armitage and Clíodhna Kelleher (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) appeared on behalf of London & South Eastern Railway Limited and Govia Thameslink Railway Limited and others.

Anneli Howard KC, Brendan McGurk KC and Khatija Hafesji (instructed by Linklaters LLP) intervened on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

Jack Williams is appearing in the Supreme Court between Tuesday 14^th October and Thursday 16^th October 2025 in Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Jack acts for the lead respondents / cross-appellants (Dillon et al),and is led by John Larkin KC and Jude Bunting KC.

The case concerns the compatibility of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 with the non-diminution guarantee in Article 2 of the Windsor Framework (formerly the Northern Ireland Protocol). The Act brought to an end Troubles-related inquests, new civil claims, Police Ombudsman and police investigations.

The case will establish the meaning and effect of Article 2, as well as the role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in domestic law post Brexit, and the circumstances in which Acts of Parliament can be disapplied for incompatibility with the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement (and Windsor Framework).

Jack and other members of Chambers will be speaking about some of these topics next week in a UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement Masterclass Webinar. More information and sign up details are available here.

The CAT has certified the first public sector CPO for collective proceedings, funded by the Government, in relation to allegedly excessive and unfair pricing for Motorola’s provision of emergency communication  services, which are essential for public safety in Great Britain (the “Airwave Services”). The PCR, Ms Clare Spottiswoode, sought certification of the proposed collective proceedings on an opt-out basis, with aggregate damages estimated to be in the region of £600–650 million, relying on the CMA’s Final Report in its market investigation, which was upheld by the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

The PCR brings her proposed collective proceedings on behalf of a class, comprised for the main part of public sector purchasers of Airwave Services such as Central Government Departments, local authorities, police, fire and ambulance services as well as a range of private companies, NGOs, charities and voluntary organisations.

The Tribunal concluded that the PCR meets the authorisation condition and that the proposed collective proceedings meet the eligibility condition. The Tribunal rejected Motorola’s objections to certification and dismissed its application for strike out for part of the claim. In particular, it held:

• the issues of dominance and duration of the claim were properly matters for trial rather than strike out; and
• the proposed class definition was clear and workable, rejecting Motorola’s contention that it would give rise to a conflict of interest;
• the claim should be certified on an opt-out basis (rather than opt-in as Motorola contended) as there would be a significant impediment to access to justice if smaller users and public sector class members were required to opt-in when they lacked the resources and expertise to actively participate in the proceedings. Opt-in proceedings were more practicable since the calculation of aggregate damages would be easier and the Tribunal could oversee a suitable method for distribution once the damages had been quantified. Class members would benefit from the additional safeguard of judicial supervision over any collective settlement in opt-out proceedings (which was not available for opt-in proceedings).

The Tribunal also amended clauses 7 and 9 of the PCR’s Litigation Funding Agreement following concerns raised by Motorola.

Anneli Howard KC acted for the PCR – a copy of the judgment is here.