Search
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.