Competition Tribunal Tightens Class Action Thresholds; UK Energy Licenses Contested

Overview: a year of doctrinal tightening. In 2025 the U.K. litigation landscape saw two connected developments that together recalibrated the power of group litigation and the robustness required of environmental licensing decisions. On one track, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), upheld (and subsequently saw that reasoning affirmed at appellate levels) that putative class representatives must present rigorous, trialable methodologies at certification — not just plausibly common issues. On another, environmental campaigners like Oceana UK pushed judicial challenges contesting the government’s issuance of dozens of North Sea oil and gas exploration licences on procedural and climate grounds. Together these developments signaled a more technical, evidence-driven adjudication environment where judges expect high-quality economic and scientific expert work before permitting coercive remedies or regulatory shortcuts.

Class certification: from access to gatekeeping. The UK’s Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) regime is a hallmark of modern consumer and competition litigation, allowing opt-out collective proceedings in appropriate cases. However, the CAT’s handling of several high-profile matters in late 2024 into 2025—most notably the Le Patourel challenge against BT’s landline pricing—illustrated that certification is no rubber stamp. The Tribunal pressed claimants to justify their damage models: how would aggregate harm be calculated? How would pass-on or heterogeneity across class members be addressed? Where claimants presented econometric frameworks that could not survive proper robustness checks, the CAT refused certification. The overarching message: collective access must be paired with credible methods so that trials remain fair and administrable.

Methodology matters: econometrics at the gate. Practically speaking, the CAT now requires claimants to furnish damage models that a judge could plausibly put to a jury or trial judge without disintegrating into innumerable mini-inquiries. This requirement places a premium on early collaboration between lawyers and data scientists. Third-party litigation funders still play an important financing role, but the Tribunal scrutinizes whether funding structures skew incentives—insisting on transparency to ensure class representatives act in the best interests of absent members. The result is a jurisprudence that balances access to remedies for widespread harms with procedural integrity: the court will not allow certification where doctrinal form meets empirical fragility.

Oceana and North Sea licensing: environmental judicial review. The parallel thread concerned environmental judicial review. Oceana UK sought permission to challenge a government licensing round that authorised multiple offshore exploration licences. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State failed to properly account for climate implications, particularly downstream (“Scope 3”) emissions that arise when hydrocarbons are ultimately combusted. The claim relied on the recent trend in planning law where courts accept that downstream emissions can be legally material to regulatory decisions. Plaintiffs argued that the licensing decision did not adequately place the decision within the UK’s net-zero commitments nor sufficiently justify how adding new licenses was consistent with national climate goals.

Administrative record and scientific rigour. Judicial review is not a merits appeal but a probe of procedural legality: did decision-makers take the legally required steps and justify their conclusions? In Oceana’s claim, the High Court examined whether the administrative record evidenced a careful consideration of climate science, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. The government defended its choices on energy security and transition arguments, asserting that domestic production can reduce higher-emission imports and buy time for renewables ramp-up. The Court’s approach emphasized that if Ministers rely on contested scientific or policy assumptions, those must appear transparently in the record with reasoned analysis.

Interactions with policy and industry. These legal trends sent clear signals to industry and lawmakers. Energy firms must now prepare licensing bids with detailed lifecycle emissions data and mitigation plans. Regulators will likely tighten documentation standards and expect greater disclosure of model assumptions. For class-action practitioners, the lesson is equally clear: construct and stress-test econometric frameworks early. The result is a legal ecosystem that demands technical competence at the frontline, reducing frivolous claims while preserving meaningful collective remedies where evidence supports them.

Wider implications and comparative lessons. UK courts’ calibration matters beyond the isles. European and common-law practitioners watch the CAT and High Court decisions for doctrinal cues. The combination of econometric gatekeeping and climate-aware administrative review creates a hybrid litigation strategy: plaintiffs must be both scientifically literate and methodologically rigorous, while governments must document decisions in a way that faces judicial scrutiny. For civil society, the route to influence may shift toward building comprehensive technical records at the regulatory stage rather than relying solely on adversarial proceedings later. In short, 2025’s UK jurisprudence pointed toward a more exacting and technical form of public-interest litigation—one that privileges sound evidence, not rhetoric.

What to watch next. The appellate trajectory of CAT certification standards and the High Court’s judgments on licensing will shape whether the current approach stabilizes or evolves. If appellate courts uphold stringent certification requirements and demand full climate accounting in the public record, expect a durable shift. Policymakers, too, may respond with clearer statutory guidance on the weight of downstream emissions in licensing decisions. For litigators, the imperative is clear: marry legal theory with rigorous data and expert support from the outset.