A panel chaired by Simon Duncombe (Freshfields) at London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2026 examined the rapid rise of mass claims and their implications for access to justice, corporate behaviour, and investor confidence.
The panel featured Sophie Thomson (BT), Seema Kennedy OBE (Fair Civil Justice), Campbell Jackson (EY), Kimberly Phillips (Shell USA), Shazia Yamin (Mishcon de Reya), and Nick Gibson KC (Matrix Chambers), bringing together perspectives from across claimant, defence, policy, and expert domains.
From Individual Harm to Collective Injury
Opening the discussion, Shazia Yamin identified both procedural and structural drivers behind the growth of mass claims. While developments such as litigation funding and the increasing maturity of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) regime have made collective actions more viable, she emphasised a deeper shift like harm itself.
“We’ve shifted from the old paradigm of tangible damage to a new paradigm of widespread, low-level, intangible harm; collective mechanisms are the only real way to seek redress.”
Examples included data breaches, algorithmic pricing, and digital platform overcharges, harms that may be insignificant individually but become substantial when aggregated. The panel agreed that globalisation has amplified this trend, allowing a single instance of wrongdoing to generate multi-jurisdictional litigation.
Litigation as Enterprise: A System Serving Whom?
However, concerns were raised that mass claims are not merely responding to modern commerce but are increasingly becoming a commercial enterprise in their own right. Questioning the distribution of benefits, Seema Kennedy observed:
“We need to ask- who is really benefiting? Is it the intermediaries… or the claimants in whose name these cases are brought?”
Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) emerged as a central theme. While recognised as essential in enabling access to justice, panellists acknowledged the risks of misaligned incentives. Comparative experience suggested that stronger regulation of funding mechanisms may increase the proportion of recoveries ultimately reaching claimants.
Comparative Lessons from the US and Australia
Kimberly Phillips drew parallels with the United States, highlighting a “broadening” of jurisdiction, pleadings, and discovery. This, she noted, creates “a great deal of uncertainty” for defendants, who face prolonged litigation and escalating costs.
Campbell Jackson offered insights from Australia, describing it as “a jurisdiction that punches above its weight” in class actions. He emphasised the importance of robust judicial case management and the ongoing challenge of maintaining proportionality between claims and claimant classes.
Deterrence or Disruption? The Innovation Debate
A central tension in the discussion was whether mass claims enhance access to justice or risk stifling innovation. Sophie Thomson pointed to the significant financial burden on businesses, noting that BT spent £26 million defending a single class action, resources that could otherwise have been directed towards infrastructure investment.
This raised broader concerns around risk aversion and reduced investment, with businesses recalibrating cost-benefit analyses in light of litigation exposure.
In contrast, Shazia Yamin rejected the characterisation of deterrence as a negative “chilling effect”: “When mass claims deter wrongdoing, that is the system working as it should.”
She pointed to sectors such as pharmaceuticals and technology in the United States as evidence that strong litigation exposure and sustained innovation can coexist.
Courts, Regulation, and Institutional Limits
The panel also explored the growing role of courts in addressing harms that regulators may be unable to adequately capture. While private enforcement can enhance accountability, it raises questions about whether complex policy issues, such as climate change or market regulation, are best resolved through adversarial litigation.
The expansion of opt-out regimes, particularly beyond competition law, remains an active area of policy debate. While some speakers supported extending collective redress mechanisms to consumer claims, others cautioned against overreach in the absence of sufficient safeguards.
The Case for Reform
There was a broad consensus on the need for procedural and legislative reform. Key proposals included:
- Stronger regulation of third-party litigation funding
- More rigorous early-stage scrutiny of claims
- Proportional limits on disclosure
- Better alignment between claimant and funder interests
Kimberly Phillips underscored the importance of predictability, noting that a system which is “fair, reasonable and balanced… inspires confidence in the overall investment climate.”
A System in Transition
In their closing reflections, panellists described the future of mass claims as “transformative,” “turbulent,” and “necessary.” While the expansion of collective redress reflects an evolving justice system responding to modern harms, its long-term sustainability will depend on maintaining a careful balance.
As the discussion made clear, mass claims are no longer peripheral; they are reshaping the civil justice landscape. The challenge for policymakers, courts, and practitioners will be to ensure that this transformation enhances access to justice without undermining economic certainty or innovation.