Insights

BCLP Responds to UK Government Competition Law Consultation

BCLP Responds to UK Government Competition Law Consultation

Oct 07, 2026
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Following our earlier article, Swifter and Simpler: The Government’s vision for Competition Redress in DBT’s July 2026 Consultation, BCLP has submitted a comprehensive response to the UK Government’s Consultation.  The Consultation proposes significant reforms to the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) collective proceedings regime, the regulatory appeals framework, and the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) enforcement powers.

Drawing on our experience acting for businesses, regulated entities, as both claimants and defendants in complex competition litigation, we engaged with all aspects of the Consultation and advanced a number of proposals aimed at promoting greater legal certainty, procedural fairness and proportionality. Among other matters, our response addresses:

  • Collective actions and certification: advocating a more robust certification framework to ensure that only meritorious and proportionate claims proceed as collective proceedings.
  • Redress schemes: highlighting the risks of overcompensation, under compensation and double recovery arising from the proposed assumed level of overcharge and proposing measures to make voluntary redress schemes more attractive and effective. 
  • Settlement incentives and costs shifting: supporting the introduction of Rule 45-based costs consequences while cautioning against importing claimant-favouring incentives that could distort settlement dynamics in high-value collective proceedings.
  • Distribution of damages and settlements: proposing greater certainty around reversion mechanisms and the treatment of undistributed sums.
  • Leniency and cartel enforcement: identifying practical issues arising from the proposed immunity from damages for Type A leniency applicants and suggesting safeguards that would encourage cooperation without compromising procedural fairness.
  • Regulatory appeals: examining proposals to transfer a wider range of regulatory appeals to the CAT, and to align appeal standards and who can appeal and intervene in an appeal across sectors, emphasising the need to preserve effective scrutiny of regulatory decision-making.
  • Competition enforcement procedures: responding to proposals affecting access to file, director disqualification, and other aspects of the CMA’s investigatory and enforcement toolkit.

Our full response is available below.

Download BCLP's Response to the Consultation (PDF)

How BCLP Can Help?

BCLP’s Competition & Antitrust team advises clients across the full spectrum of competition law disputes, investigations and regulatory matters. We are actively involved in high-value damages claims, collective actions before the CAT, cartel investigations, abuse of dominance cases, merger control, regulatory appeals and market investigations. Combining litigation, regulatory and economic expertise, we help clients navigate an increasingly active enforcement environment, manage litigation risk, and engage effectively with policymakers and regulators.

Related capabilities

  • Antitrust & Competition

Meet the team


Alexandra Hildyard

Alexandra Hildyard
+44 (0) 20 3400 3767

Benjamin Blacklock

Benjamin Blacklock
+44 (0) 20 3400 3411

Nicholas Young

Nicholas Young
+44 (0) 20 3400 3692
""
""
+44 (0) 20 3400 4096
This material is not comprehensive, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice. Your use or receipt of this material does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. If you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney regarding your particular circumstances. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This material may be “Attorney Advertising” under the ethics and professional rules of certain jurisdictions. For advertising purposes, St. Louis, Missouri, is designated BCLP’s principal office and Kathrine Dixon (kathrine.dixon@bclplaw.com) as the responsible attorney.