CAT rejects claim over fears costs outweigh payouts to millions of consumers
The Competition Appeal Tribunal has refused to certify a major consumer class action over alleged salmon price-fixing, warning that the case risked benefiting lawyers and funders more than the public it aimed to compensate.
The Tribunal declined to grant a collective proceedings order (CPO) in a claim brought by Waterside Class Limited against several major salmon producers, including Mowi, SalMar, and Grieg Seafood. The proposed action alleged unlawful collusion to inflate Atlantic salmon prices between 2013 and 2019, with costs passed on to UK consumers.
The claim sought to represent an estimated 35 to 44 million consumers, making it one of the largest proposed opt-out class actions in the UK. However, the Tribunal found that the financial return to individuals could be minimal, with estimated losses ranging from just £1.61 to £8.77 per person.
By contrast, the projected litigation costs exceeded £20 million, with additional success fees and funder returns potentially pushing the total significantly higher. The Tribunal described these costs as “inexplicably high” and criticised the failure to properly assess whether the case was economically viable for the class as a whole.
A central concern was the likely low uptake of compensation, drawing on previous class action experience where only a tiny proportion of eligible claimants came forward. The Tribunal warned that, in such scenarios, “the sums returned to the lawyers and funder would be likely to swamp” what is paid to consumers.
The judgment delivers one of the clearest judicial warnings yet about the risks of “lawyer-driven” collective proceedings, noting that such claims can create “enormous and irresistible commercial benefit” for legal teams while offering limited real-world benefit to individuals.
The Tribunal also raised concerns about governance and independence, criticising the proposed class representative for failing to properly scrutinise costs and for charging £300 per hour, a rate it suggested was difficult to reconcile with acting in the public interest.
Despite refusing certification, the Tribunal stopped short of striking out the claim entirely. It indicated that a revised application could succeed if costs were reduced and a more effective method of distributing compensation, potentially through retail channels, was developed.
The decision comes amid growing scrutiny of the UK’s collective proceedings regime, particularly around whether large-scale consumer claims are delivering meaningful compensation or primarily enriching litigation stakeholders.
If refiled successfully, the case could still proceed alongside related claims brought by supermarkets, but the ruling signals a tougher judicial approach to ensuring class actions genuinely serve consumer interests rather than commercial ones.