15 January 2021: CPO hearing to be held on 12 July 2021
11 December 2020: Supreme Court delivers Merricks judgment
On 11 December 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in another case involving an application for a CPO, Mastercard Inc v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE. The Merricks judgment clarifies the test to be applied by the Tribunal when considering CPO applications, including Mr Evans’ application.
Mr Evans commented: “The Supreme Court has, in its judgment in Merricks, set out a sensible process for the certification of collective proceedings. This is good news for the collective actions regime, for FX Claim UK and, in turn, the UK economy. This clear judgment will enable us to list a CPO hearing and progress to the next stage of the case.”
The Tribunal has listed a case management hearing for 15 January 2021 to determine a new hearing date for Mr Evans’ CPO application.
16 November 2020: Certification hearing to be re-scheduled
On 16 November 2020, the Tribunal made an order (available here) in which it vacated the 10-day hearing of Mr Evans’ application for a collective proceedings order (CPO) – which was scheduled to take place on 1 March 2021 – and directed that the hearing should take place at a later date.
17 April 2020: Amendments to Mr Evans’ CPO application are filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal
Following disclosure of the confidential versions of the European Commission’s infringement decisions to Mr Evans and his legal and expert team, certain limited amendments have been made to Mr Evans’ CPO application. The amendments seek to reflect some of the material contained in the confidential versions of the decisions, to clarify certain matters in the CPO application, and to update the application to reflect developments since it was filed, including by providing further information regarding the additional ATE insurance that Mr Evans has obtained.
Those amended documents were filed at the Tribunal on 17 April 2020.
Those amended documents are available in the Claim Documents section of the website. It has been necessary to redact parts of some of those documents, as they contain or refer to material which has been disclosed into the joint confidentiality ring.
18 March 2020: Orders of the Competition Appeal Tribunal
On 18 March 2020, the Tribunal made two orders which are available here and provide for the following:
- Directions regarding some of the next steps in the proceedings. In particular, this order provides that Mr Evans and Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited shall exchange copies of their applications, together with any other documents filed and served in support of their applications so far. It also provides that the Proposed Defendants shall disclose copies of the confidential versions of the European Commission’s two infringement decisions to Mr Evans and his legal and expert team into a confidentiality ring (which is explained below); and
- A joint confidentiality ring has been established covering the two CPO applications into which particularly sensitive confidential documents and information can be disclosed with additional confidentiality protections. The documents to be disclosed into the joint confidentiality ring include the confidential versions of the European Commission’s two infringement decisions (non-confidential versions of the decisions are available here).
6 March 2020: Judgment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal
On 6 March 2020, the Tribunal handed down a judgment in which it held that the carriage dispute should not be determined as a preliminary issue. Instead, the Tribunal concluded that there should be a single hearing to determine whether a CPO should be made and, if so, to which class representative (as between Mr Evans and Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited).
Click here to read the Tribunal’s judgment. Click here to read a press release issued on behalf of Mr Evans regarding the Tribunal’s decision.
13 February 2020: Case management hearing at the Competition Appeal Tribunal
At this hearing, the Tribunal considered case management issues relating to both Mr Evans’ CPO application and the application brought by Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited. (For more information about the two different applications, see FAQ 26.)
In particular, the Tribunal heard submissions as to whether it should determine the question of which proposed class representative would be most suitable to represent the class(es) (known as the “carriage dispute”) as a preliminary issue, or whether there should be a single hearing to decide whether to grant a CPO, and if so, which proposed class representative (Mr Evans and Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited) should be granted the CPO (see FAQ 11 for more information in relation to this hearing).
Click here to read a transcript of the hearing.