A Thomas Miller Company
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has recently realised another first in approving the consolidation of two competing separate actions in the ad-tech sector against Google, therefore avoiding a ‘carriage dispute’ about which of the claims would be most suitable to be certified and proceed to trial.
The consolidation process involved the amalgamation of various aspects such as the roles of legal teams, the third-party funding agreements and the ATE insurance arrangements. TheJudge is very pleased to have led on the discussions and negotiations around the amalgamation of the ATE insurance arrangements.
Robert Warner, Director at TheJudge comments: “It is of significant value to the wider litigation insurance market, its participants and law firms operating within the remit of the competition collective proceedings regime to be able to establish a new precent on an issue that is likely to arise with increased frequency and importance going forwards. It’s a further example of TheJudge being at the very forefront of industry developments and innovation.”
If your firm is commencing a mass claim, which is likely to require ATE Insurance, we recommend an early conversation with our team to ensure the right strategy is adopted from the outset. Whether your case requires £1m or £50m of adverse cost cover, no team anywhere in the market has more experience than TheJudge. As the ad-tech cases against Google show, the original policy placement isn’t the only role of a good broker; they are there to support the legal team and claimants throughout, resolving difficulties, adapting to developments (including unprecedented scenarios as occurred in ad-tech claims) and in the unfortunate scenario of a case losing, helping to ensure the speedy resolution of claims.
The recent industry disrupting decision in PACCAR (R PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28) is a good example of why keeping a separation between funding agreements and ATE insurance makes sense.
