Guidance to PCRS on funding, insurance and legal representation

13/07/26

In its judgment handed down on 13 July 2026 in Sciallis v Fender & Ors [2026] CAT 56 the Competition Appeal Tribunal has provided general guidance on its expectations regarding funding, insurance and legal representation arrangements when proposed collective proceedings are filed.

The Tribunal emphasised that the requirement for scrutiny of the PCR’s funding arrangements at the certification stage is an essential and central part of the balance struck by the collective proceedings regime. A prudent PCR will normally wish to ensure that its funding arrangements are finalised before its collective proceedings claim form is filed. Where it is necessary to file prior to finalising, for example for limitation reasons, the PCR should give a full and candid explanation of the stage the funding arrangements have reached, the reasons why it has not been possible to finalise a funding agreement before filing, and how much further time is expected to be needed to do so.

The Tribunal further emphasised the PCR’s duty of transparency. If, at any time during the proceedings, the facts and matters set out in the claim form and accompanying evidence change in a material way relevant to the authorisation or eligibility conditions for certification of the collective proceedings, the PCR and their legal representatives have a duty to bring that matter promptly to the attention of the Tribunal and the other parties to the proceedings.

The PCR did not inform the Tribunal and the Proposed Defendants that negotiations with her proposed funder had broken down, and the PCR’s solicitors’ responses to enquiries made on behalf of the Proposed Defendants were described by the Tribunal as “unhelpful, uncooperative, deliberately obfuscatory and misleading.” The Tribunal considered such conduct to be unreasonable to a high degree and outside the norm of litigation practice, as well as a breach of the general duties of the PCR in the conduct of the collective proceedings under r. 4(7) and a breach of the PCR’s duty of full and frank disclosure in relation to the applications for service out of the jurisdiction and extension of time for such service. Following the PCR’s application to withdraw the proceedings, the Tribunal assessed costs from the point at which negotiations with the funder had ceased on the indemnity basis.

The judgment is available here.