PACCAR v Competition Appeal Tribunal

Allegations & issues

Truck manufacturers challenged funding arrangements used by proposed representatives in collective competition proceedings. [2, Background]

Key rulings & findings

The statutory definition of claims management services encompassed the funding in issue. Lady Rose dissented. [2, Judgment and Reasons]

Admissions

No admission of underlying competition misconduct arose from this funding appeal.

Disposition

Appeal allowed on 26 July 2023. [1–2]

Penalties, damages & redress

The Supreme Court did not assess cartel damages or impose a misconduct penalty in this appeal.

Restrictions & obligations

The ruling concerned funding enforceability, not a blanket prohibition on third-party litigation funding. [2]

Regulatory context

On 3 September 2026, the government told Parliament that it intended to legislate to mitigate PACCAR and regulate litigation funding when parliamentary time allowed. That statement describes proposed reform, not an enacted reversal. [3]

Why litigation funding was before the Court

Two proposed representatives sought to bring collective competition proceedings for truck purchasers. To obtain approval they needed to demonstrate adequate funding, including provision for adverse costs. Their agreements promised funders a percentage of damages recovered if the litigation succeeded. [1; 2, Background]

The issue was whether those agreements fell within the statutory definition of damages-based agreements. It was accepted that they had not satisfied the conditions applicable to that category, making classification decisive for enforceability. The appeal did not decide what compensation truck purchasers were owed. [1; 2]

The majority’s statutory reasoning

The majority read the definition of claims-management services to include financial assistance for making a claim. It rejected an interpretation that required the funder actively to manage the litigation. The relevant words came from legislation using a broad definition, which the later damages-based-agreement regime incorporated. [1; 2, Reasons]

Lady Rose dissented. The majority’s outcome made these non-compliant agreements unenforceable, but did not dispose of the underlying cartel allegations or decide the validity of every differently structured funding agreement. Later reform proposals are a separate matter from what the Supreme Court decided in July 2023. [1; 2]

THE UNDERLYING RECORD

Primary sources

Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.