Judgment of the Tribunal granting the Proposed Class Representative’s (“PCR’s”) application for a Collective Proceedings Order.
The Tribunal found that:
The Claim Form is properly pleaded, and sets out a case that is arguable within the Merricks test. The PCR’s counterfactual case is sufficiently pleaded for Google to know the case it has to meet.
The PCR has, through the report of its expert economist, demonstrated that the averments in the Claim Form are triable and that the harm to the Proposed Class and the loss and damage suffered by it can be quantified.
In relation to case management, the Tribunal held:
Limitation issues should be dealt with as part of the main trial, rather than as questions of strike out.
The Tribunal will not oblige the PCR to change the provisions of its arrangements with regard to legal representation.
The issue raised by the Proposed Defendants in relation to a potential conflict of interest within the Proposed Class is more effectively dealt with during the course of proceedings, and in particular when questions of distribution come to be considered.
This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
