Andrew Leitch

  1. People /

Andrew Leitch

Andrew Leitch

Partner


London
  1. People /

Andrew Leitch

Andrew Leitch

Partner


London

Andrew Leitch

Partner

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4023

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Andrew has significant experience in competition litigation, having acted for both claimants and defendants in disputes arising out of price fixing cartels, in addition to advising on litigation concerning abuse of dominant positions in marketplaces.  Andrew has experience of litigating disputes in various courts in the U.K., including the High Court of Justice, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  He has advised clients in a range of regulated and non-regulated industry sectors, including industrial manufacturers, financial institutions and technology companies.  Andrew also has experience in commercial litigation, including disputes involving complex financial products.

Andrew is a contributing author to BCLP’s Competition Collective.

Andrew is ranked as “Rising Star” in Legal 500 2023 for Competition Litigation, a “Future Leader” in Who’s Who Legal 2023 and is listed in The Best Lawyers™ Ones to Watch 2024 guide.

“Ed Coulson and Andrew Leitch are the ‘Batman and Robin’ of UK competition litigation – a dynamic duo who resolve the biggest cases.” Legal 500 2021

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • England and Wales
  • Scotland

Related Practice Areas

  • Antitrust

  • Class Actions

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Banking & Finance Disputes

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Class Actions & Mass Torts

  • UK & EU Class Actions

  • Financial Services

  • Consumer Fraud

  • Insurance (Class Actions)

  • Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices (Class Actions)

  • Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

Experience

  • Acting for Thames Water Utilities Limited in defending a proposed collective action pursued by Prof Roberts in relation to sewerage services
  • Acting for the claimants in Commercial Court cases FL-2023-000004 Legal & General Assurance (Pensions Management) Limited and Others v Glencore plc and FL-2023-000009 Legal & General Assurance (Pensions Management) Limited and Others v Glencore plc
  • Obtaining successful trial outcomes for the claimants in the jointly case managed CAT cases 1284/5/7/18 (T) Royal Mail Group Limited v DAF Trucks Limited and Others and 1290/5/7/18 (T) BT Group PLC and Others v DAF Trucks Limited and Others
  • Acting for the claimants in CAT case 1295/5/7/18 (T) Dawsongroup plc and Others v DAF Trucks N.V. and Others, which settled shortly prior to trial
  • Acting for the claimants in CAT cases 1360/5/7/20 (T) BFS Group Limited & Another v DAF Trucks Limited & Others, 1361/5/7/20 (T) Enterprise Rent-a-Car UK Limited v DAF Trucks Limited & Others and 1362/5/7/20 (T) ABF Grain Products Limited & Others v DAF Trucks Limited & Others
  • Acting for the defendants in CAT case 1584/5/7/23 (T) Whistl UK Limited v International Distributions Services Plc and Royal Mail Group Limited
  • Acting for the Morgan Stanley defendants in CAT case 1436/5/7/22 (T) Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Others v Deutsche Bank AG London & Others
  • Acting for defendant Technicolor S.A. in High Court case CP-2018-000037 Arcelik A.S and Others v LG Electronics Inc. and Others

Resources

Publications

Ed Coulson, Andrew Leitch & Ben Bolderson, "A certified muddle: the costs of collective proceedings", published in Global Competition Litigation Review on 15 June 2023. 

Marieke Datema, Ed Coulson & Andrew Leitch, “Cartel Settlements: Facilitating Damages Claims But Hybrid Cases Remain Unsettling”, published in Competition Policy International on 4 January 2021.

Ed Coulson & Andrew Leitch, “Limitation in Cartel Damages Actions under English Law post Granville”, published in the Global Competition Law Review December 2020 edition.

Andrew Leitch, “Skanska: are jurisdiction challenges now an impossible undertaking?” (2019) Competition Law Journal 18(3) 97.

Ed Coulson and Andrew Leitch, “More Intel on the territorial limits of EU competition law” (2018) Competition Law Journal 17(1) 13.

Speaking Engagements

Global Class Actions Symposium, November 2022 – speaker on Competition Claims

ThoughtLeaders4 Group Litigation and Class Actions conference, October 2022 – speaker on class actions in the CAT

IMN International Litigation Finance Forum, October 2022 – on a panel discussing how corporates and institutional investors are using litigation finance

The Future of UK Competition Litigation conference, 2019 - on a panel discussing costs

Junior Competition Conference, 2019 - on a panel discussing recent developments in competition litigation

Related Insights

View All Related Insights

Insights
Dec 06, 2023

After PACCAR: a new approach to funding collective proceedings in the CAT

In the first certification decision since the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR, the CAT has held that a litigation funding agreement (LFA) revised in light of PACCAR was not a damages-based agreement (DBA) and it was therefore enforceable for the purposes of opt-out collective proceedings in the CAT. In its decision, the CAT found that it was permissible to include a provision in the LFA whereby the funder would be paid a percentage of awarded damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law”. In this blog, we consider the implications for litigation funding and collective proceedings in the CAT, both as a result of this decision and the government’s proposed amendment (Clause 126) to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.

Related Insights

Awards
Apr 12, 2024
Eight BCLP Partners Ranked in 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers
Insights
Dec 06, 2023
After PACCAR: a new approach to funding collective proceedings in the CAT
In the first certification decision since the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR, the CAT has held that a litigation funding agreement (LFA) revised in light of PACCAR was not a damages-based agreement (DBA) and it was therefore enforceable for the purposes of opt-out collective proceedings in the CAT. In its decision, the CAT found that it was permissible to include a provision in the LFA whereby the funder would be paid a percentage of awarded damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law”. In this blog, we consider the implications for litigation funding and collective proceedings in the CAT, both as a result of this decision and the government’s proposed amendment (Clause 126) to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
News
Nov 10, 2023
BCLP names global group to partnership
Awards
Oct 04, 2023
The Legal 500 UK ranks BCLP in 54 practice areas and recognizes 74 lawyers as “leading individuals”
Awards
Sep 19, 2023
BCLP Competition Lawyers Ranked in ‘Who’s Who Legal’ 2023
Webinars
Thursday, November 23
Webinar on the latest competition litigation trends
News
Jun 28, 2023
BCLP competition team featured in ‘The Lawyer’ for work on landmark trucks cartel case
News
Jun 21, 2023
BCLP wins The Lawyer Awards Litigation Team of the Year
Insights
Jun 16, 2023
Counting the costs of certification: the allocation of costs in collective proceedings