The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal has refused to grant a Collective Proceedings Order in Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Others, halting a consumer compensation claim over alleged salmon price fixing between 2015 and 2019.
The tribunal rejected certification on two grounds: the claim failed the eligibility test, and Waterside Class Limited was not authorised to act as class representative, according to a report by law firm Macfarlanes.
Waterside’s proposed litigation budget stood at £15.75m, excluding an ATE insurance deposit premium of £5.26m. Potential additional fees — including a 50% solicitor success fee and up to £19.4m in contingent insurance premiums — were disclosed only under direct questioning at the hearing.
The tribunal estimated consumer take-up at between £712,000 and £3.1m, far below the projected legal costs. It found the failure to disclose contingent fees upfront “wrong, and potentially misleading.”
The tribunal also criticised Waterside for not coordinating with separate proceedings brought by Asda and Tesco, which pursue the same cartel allegations and overcharge calculations.
The tribunal took issue with the £300-per-hour fee paid to Waterside’s sole director, Anne Heal, with projected total charges of up to £316,950. It said such self-authorised fees create “a potential blurring of the lines” between the class representative’s interests and those of legal advisers and funders.
The claim alleged that the cartel drove Atlantic salmon prices up to 20% above normal levels. Defendants include Mowi ASA, SalMar ASA, Lerøy Seafood, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg Seafood ASA.
The tribunal did not strike out the claim. A revised application remains possible, particularly if Waterside reduces its costs budget and coordinates with the retailer proceedings.