The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) recently issued its second-ever order approving the distribution to class members of monies obtained in UK collective proceedings. The details of the distribution plan approved by the Tribunal should prove instructive to class representatives in future actions.
Background
Class representative Mark McLaren1 (the CR) began the RoRo proceedings in February 2020. These proceedings followed on from a 2018 European Commission decision imposing fines on seven international shipping firms for operating a maritime car shipping cartel that, according to the CR, impacted the price of approximately 25 million vehicles purchased and leased in the UK between 18 October 2006 and 6 September 2015 (many of which were purchased by corporate class members).
These proceedings saw judgments approving the first, second and third-ever collective settlements since the UK class action regime came into force (read our previous articles on these here and here). A trial took place between 13 January 2025 and 13 March 2025, but the remaining parties settled before judgment was handed down. Following a hearing in January 2026, a Collective Settlement Approval Order was handed down on 11 February 2026, which approved a final settlement involving all the remaining defendants in these proceedings.
The CR then considered how all the settlement sums were to be distributed to the class. Following a hearing on 17 September 2026, the Tribunal approved the CR’s distribution plan on 23 September 2026 and the final Order was published on 5 October 2026.
This is only the second time approval has been granted for the distribution of monies obtained via collective proceedings in the UK - the first being the relatively unsatisfactory distribution of the settlement sums agreed in the Boundary Fares2 proceedings, in which class member take-up was c.1%. The approved distribution plan in RoRo therefore provides an insight into the expectations of the Tribunal for distribution in future collective proceedings.
How will distribution work?
Members of the class will, by informing the CR, have the opportunity to either: (i) opt out of the collective settlement, if domiciled in the UK on 5 October 2026; or (ii) opt in, if not domiciled in the UK on 5 October 2026. Once the distribution process opens, it will run for six months. The CR will update the Tribunal on key metrics showing progress on distribution matters on a monthly basis. A hearing will also be held halfway through this six-month period. The Tribunal may give additional directions following receipt of the monthly reports or at the hearing.
Class members will be entitled to claim £25 for their first relevant vehicle, £5 for their second to sixth vehicles, and £2.50 for all subsequent vehicles. This structure of payments was chosen to encourage class members to sign up for the distribution. This can be compared against the estimated highest average overcharge claimed per vehicle at trial, being £12.47 for consumers and £5.03 for corporate entities (or £5.36 and £2.16 per vehicle respectively, if prorated for the total settlement pot).
Based on the CR’s estimation of take-up rates amongst different types of class member (e.g. businesses, Motability customers and consumers), the proposed total distribution will be just under £54m, leaving a c.£1.9m buffer from the total settlement pot of £55.87m.
Class members will be able to self-verify claims for up to six vehicles (i.e. up to £50 in total) by signing a simple statement of truth. Additional evidence will be required to verify claims for more than six vehicles.
To the extent that take-up is higher than expected, the CR proposes that claims are paid out on a first-come, first-served basis until the total settlement pot is exhausted. If take-up is lower than expected, undistributed damages will go to the Access to Justice Foundation, after any sums have been allocated to stakeholders and/or reversionary mechanisms in the settlement agreements have been paid (and subject also to the possibility of “top-up” distribution for class members with seven or more vehicles, if take-up is significantly lower than expected).
Consumer class members will be able to obtain their monies via a variety of payment methods, namely: (i) bank transfer; (ii) PayPal; (iii) digital gift cards/voucher schemes; (iv) pre-paid cards; (v) charitable donations to Macmillan or the Access to Justice Foundation; or (vi) Nectar loyalty points.
The CR has been permitted to use £2.5m from the settlement sums and £500,000m from the interest accrued on those sums towards the costs of preparing the distribution plan and administering the distribution process. A budget of £425,000 had been allocated to the distribution planning stage (with the remainder being for the actual distribution stage), but this had already been exceeded by almost £200,000 when the final distribution plan was filed on 3 September 2026, due to the increased work undertaken by the CR’s team following directions from the Tribunal.
What lessons can be taken from this approved distribution plan?
The distribution plan in this case was expressly informed by the “disappointing nature” of and “lessons learned” from the distribution of the sums obtained in the Boundary Fares claims. We consider the following to be the key takeaways from the approval of this distribution plan.
- Detail, detail, detail. The distribution plan ran to 127 pages, demonstrating the level of detail the CR considered necessary to obtain approval. In future cases the Tribunal is likely to give directions requesting that the parties work to provide such detail, if not already included in their plans, before distribution is approved.
- Focus on take-up. The Tribunal focused closely on likely take-up by class members and on the evidence supporting the CR’s position on this issue. It is likely to do so again in future cases. For example, in this case the CR:
- was asked to “prioritise targeted engagement” with major fleet operators and other corporate class members, such that their expected participation in the distribution could be reported and considered prior to the Order being made; and
- submitted the results of surveys and focus groups undertaken to assist with the demographic profiling of consumer class members, to inform the strategy for notices and advertising and the structure of the payments, with a view to encouraging take-up (including increasing the payout for the first vehicle claimed). Indeed, the distribution plan appended an annex containing nine permutations of possible amounts to be distributed per vehicle and the anticipated take-up on a high, medium and low basis in each case.
- Class member confidentiality. Information regarding specific class members can be kept confidential in the approved distribution plan, including whether or not a particular class member has signed up to participate in distribution.
- A wide range of payment methods. Research on UK consumers referred to in the distribution plan showed that whilst consumers prefer to receive money in their bank accounts, they are also reluctant to share their bank details (this was one of the issues encountered in the Boundary Fares distribution). As such, a choice of several payment methods has been offered (as detailed above). If successful in encouraging class members to come forward, this approach is likely to be adopted in future collective actions.
- Evidential burdens for making a claim. Lowering the evidential burden for claiming to a simple statement of truth, as in this case, should assist in encouraging consumers to collect their entitlements, particularly where they are relatively small. Indeed, the statement of truth required in Boundary Fares was considered to be overly long and complex, such that it deterred consumers from claiming. The Tribunal did, however, accept the requirement for corporate class members to provide more evidence to support their claims, especially where their entitlements are larger.
- A simple claim process is necessary. The CR’s distribution plan noted that, in Boundary Fares, a “high percentage of consumers… started, but did not complete the claim process”, which suggested that the process was too complex. The form that class members are required to complete to obtain their payment has been tested to ensure that it does not present a barrier to claims, whilst still protecting against fraudulent claims. The CR also plans to put in place methods by which consumers can contact the claims administrators if they have queries.
As explained above, the distribution planning budget has been exceeded in this case. However, this is partly because the CR has already had to: (i) educate certain class members about the collective actions regime; and (ii) commence some of the distribution processes in order to see if they were workable. Distribution processes in future collective actions may be able to build on the increased awareness of the regime resulting from the marketing and distribution of this settlement, and also borrow some of the strategies used in this case, both of which are likely to save costs for other class representatives.
Looking ahead
As this is only the second time sums have been distributed under the UK collective action regime, practitioners, stakeholders and members of classes in other collective proceedings will be keeping an eye on how the distribution process unfolds over the coming months.
Footnotes
1. Acting through a special purpose vehicle: Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited.
2 Justin Gutmann v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited & Others, Justin Gutmann v London & South Eastern Railway Limited, and Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited and Another.
Macfarlanes is a pre-eminent law firm advising a global client base across Private Capital, Private Wealth, M&A and Disputes.
Visit our website to learn more about our services and how we can assist.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
