Collective competition claim against Govia Thameslink Railway

[Egg Centric]

Another month, another stay order...



As a reminder this relates to the claim against GTR's brand-specific fares on the Brighton Main Line.

Isn't the representative more or less a figurehead? Is there any easy way to see why he is asking to stay it?

 

[tumbledown]

The link to the appropriate bit of the TSA in

Collective competition claim against Govia Thameslink Railway

This press release hit the newswires yesterday: COLLECTIVE COMPETITION CLAIM AGAINST GOVIA THAMESLINK RAILWAY FOR OVERCHARGING RAIL PASSENGERS ON BRIGHTON MAINLINE SINCE OCTOBER 2015 London 6 July 2021 – An application to commence an opt-out collective action (“Claim”) was launched in the...

www.railforums.co.uk

is broken - can a new one be supplied please?

 

[Alex365Dash]

The link to the appropriate bit of the TSA in

Collective competition claim against Govia Thameslink Railway

This press release hit the newswires yesterday: COLLECTIVE COMPETITION CLAIM AGAINST GOVIA THAMESLINK RAILWAY FOR OVERCHARGING RAIL PASSENGERS ON BRIGHTON MAINLINE SINCE OCTOBER 2015 London 6 July 2021 – An application to commence an opt-out collective action (“Claim”) was launched in the...

www.railforums.co.uk

is broken - can a new one be supplied please?

Working link to the TSA:

Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA)

The Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) sets out the various arrangements between the operators relating to the carriage of passengers and the retailing of t

www.raildeliverygroup.com

 

[Edvid]

Mr Boyle's proposed replacement has decided to pull out of the proceedings.

18 March 2026 GTR Claim update

Mr. Walter Merricks had previously stated that he was pursuing an application to be authorised as the class representative in place of Mr Boyle, who sadly died on 19 June 2025. On 29 January 2026 Mr. Merricks informed the Competition Appeal Tribunal that he would not in fact pursue his application.

Accordingly, in accordance with our duties to the class we immediately reached out to the funding market to pursue other funding options to ensure that the case can continue. Since that time Maitland Walker LLP has been working diligently to secure additional funding and identify a new proposed class representative.

The Tribunal has ordered that a hearing be held on 15 April, to (i) determine directions going forward and (ii) hear the parties’ costs applications against Mr Merricks as a result of Mr Merricks’ decision not to file his authorisation application.

20 April 2026 Tribunal order

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. These proceedings are further stayed until 24 July 2026, save in relation to any work that is necessary for the Proposed Authorisation Application.

2. Unless the Proposed Authorisation Application is filed by 4pm on 24 July 2026, the Proceedings are decertified and the CPO revoked without further order.

3. If the Proposed Authorisation Application is filed in compliance with paragraph 2, the Defendants and the Intervener (if so advised) shall file and serve their response(s) to the Proposed Authorisation Application by 4pm on the date falling three weeks prior to the first date of the hearing listed pursuant to paragraph 4.

4. A two-day hearing shall be listed on 22 and 23 September 2026. The purpose of the hearing shall be (alternatively) (i) if the Proposed Authorisation Application is filed in compliance with paragraph 2, to consider the Proposed Authorisation Application as filed on 24 July 2026 or amended in accordance with paragraph 6 below, or (ii) if no Proposed Authorisation Application is filed, to consider matters consequential to the decertification of the Proceedings, including the Defendants’ application for their costs of the Proceedings and (if so advised) the Intervener’s application for its costs of the Proceedings.

5. The proposed replacement class representative, the Defendants and the Intervener shall file and exchange skeleton arguments by 4pm on the date falling 7 days prior to the first date of the hearing referred to in paragraph 4.

6. No amendment may be made to the Proposed Authorisation Application as filed and served on 24 July 2026 without the approval of the Tribunal.

Basically this claim will either continue into next year or fall by the wayside.

 

[Richardr]

From your quotes and the linked files, perhaps the most noteworthy to me is:

we immediately reached out to the funding market to pursue other funding options to ensure that the case can continue

It makes it sound as if the proposed representative was a funder and that funding is not now available [it may be that they aren't directly linked, but that he pulled out when the funding wasn't there]. To a non lawyer such as myself, it seems that by 17 July they need to appoint a new class representative, and one imagines find funding.

 

[Dewedin]

From your quotes and the linked files, perhaps the most noteworthy to me is:


It makes it sound as if the proposed representative was a funder and that funding is not now available [it may be that they aren't directly linked, but that he pulled out when the funding wasn't there]. To a non lawyer such as myself, it seems that by 17 July they need to appoint a new class representative, and one imagines find funding.

Yes and I'm no lawyer either but am under the impression a new class rep has indeed been identified.

 

[Edvid]

Isn't the representative more or less a figurehead? Is there any easy way to see why he is asking to stay it?

The recent judgment on costs has 8 pages' worth of reasoning - see page 3 onwards.

It was the events in paragraph 8 of the introduction that ultimately set Mr Merricks' withdrawal in motion.

On 23 October 2025, Mr Merricks instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher (UK) LLP (WFG) to act for him in the proceedings, and informed Maitland Walker that they would not be instructed. On 27 October 2025, WFG wrote to the Tribunal stating that they, and not Maitland Walker, had been instructed to act for Mr Merricks in the proceedings, and that, going forward, all correspondence and communications relating to the proceedings should be addressed to WFG.

 

[yorkie]

Very damning for Walter Merricks reputation.

Getting rid of the experts on the case was never going to be a wise move, and it's hardly surprising that the case would no longer have been insurable.

Hopefully the delay he has caused can now be put to bed, and the case can proceed.

 

[JamesT]

I note we have gone past the 24th July deadline for filing. The gtrclaim.co.uk website also appears to be dead and is only returning 403. Has an updated application been filed or is the class action dead?

 

[CyrusWuff]

The Competition Appeal Tribunal site shows hearings scheduled for 22nd and 23rd September.

1404/7/7/21 David Courtney Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited & Others​

Registered​

10/06/2021

Tribunal​

• The Honourable Mr Justice Butcher
• Professor Anthony Neuberger
• Professor Rachael Mulheron KC (Hon)

Status​

Application by David Courtney Boyle and Edward John Vermeer to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. The proposed collective proceedings would combine standalone claims against the Proposed Defendants for loss and damage caused by alleged infringements of the Chapter II prohibition on abuse of dominance in section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

A CMC took place on 16 December 2021.

A hearing to consider the Proposed Class Representatives' request to re-amend their collective proceedings claim form took place on 5 July 2022. The President issued his ruling in relation to this request on 5 July 2022 ([2022] CAT 30).

The CPO Application hearing took place on 13 to 15 July 2022. Judgment was issued on 25 July 2022. The Collective Proceedings Order was made on 5 October 2022.

A CMC took place on 14 October 2022. The President made a Reasoned Order in relation to costs on 28 November 2022 ([2022] CAT 54).

A CMC took place on 17 March 2023. The Tribunal issued a judgment dated 24 March 2023 vacating the trial listed for the last quarter of 2023, staying the proceedings (subject to a limited number of exceptions) and providing further case management directions ([2023] CAT 19).

A CMC took place on 12 October 2023. The Tribunal gave a ruling on the modality of trial on 19 October 2023. A CMC to consider (i) the Class Representative's (CR) application to amend his Claim Form; and (ii) the next steps in the proceedings took place on 6 and 7 February 2025. On 6 March 2025 the Tribunal issued its ruling refusing an application by the Class Representative to amend his claim form ([2025] CAT 16).

A further CMC took place on 26 and 27 March 2025 (the March CMC). The Tribunal issued its ruling on consequential matters arising from the CR's amendment application on Day 1 of the March CMC ([2025] CAT 23).

On 1 May 2025, the Tribunal issued its judgment on costs and next steps following the March CMC ([2025] CAT 26).

By Order dated 15 December 2025, the proceedings are stayed until 30 January 2026, save in relation to any work that is necessary for the identification and application for approval of a suitable class representative. A hearing to consider the next steps in the proceedings and costs took place on 15 April 2026. The Tribunal issued its judgment on the costs applications brought by the Estate of Mr Boyle and the Defendants against Mr Merricks on 12 May 2026 ([2026] CAT 45).

On 20 April 2026, the Tribunal made an order in relation to the future conduct of the proceedings. A hearing has been fixed for 22 and 23 September 2026.

 

[JamesT]

The Competition Appeal Tribunal site shows hearings scheduled for 22nd and 23rd September.

The order in April (as reproduced in post #64) did schedule those hearings, but said it would be decertified as a class action if a further application wasn’t filed.

 

[infobleep]

It would be a shame if the class action failed. Whilst I never was impacted, I am convinced by the arguments that it should not have happened.

 

[Richardr]

I note we have gone past the 24th July deadline for filing. The gtrclaim.co.uk website also appears to be dead and is only returning 403. Has an updated application been filed or is the class action dead?

That site is working now [I'm just catching up on a few weeks of posts], but says the following in its update. Does anyone know the full meaning of decertification?

Further to the previous update, regretfully no authorisation application was filed on 24 July 2026 by a prospective class representative for authorisation to replace the late Mr Boyle. As a result, under paragraph 4 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s Order dated 20 April 2026, the case is now by default likely to be decertified, and the hearing listed to take place on 22 and 23 September 2026 shall be used to consider the matters arising out of the decertification of the case.

 

[JamesT]

That site is working now [I'm just catching up on a few weeks of posts], but says the following in its update. Does anyone know the full meaning of decertification?

Decertification means it will no longer be a class action. The trial might continue, but any judgment will only be individual rather than general.
So it won’t be possible to use this case to prove that GTR have routinely overcharged passengers.

 

[MrJeeves]

My understanding from what I've heard is that the case has all but fallen apart since the death of the original class representative, and unfortunately we shouldn't realistically expect it to go any further.

 

[Egg Centric]

They don't seem to have tried particularly hard to find a new class representative. A post here would have found someone surely? Or is the problem no one would insure the representative?

 

[Dewedin]

I understand that this action is effectively discontinued due to the issue of funding. Also, the previously posted judgment seemed to indicate a breakdown in relations between the funder and the solicitors.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Does this mean tickets routed via different GTR brands will continue?

 

[Watershed]

It's very unfortunate that the class representative here died. But I understand there were a few other things that were being badly managed about the case (and I'm not necessarily saying by Mr Boyle), so even if he had survived we might have seen the same outcome anyway.

It's a real shame because this experience may well put litigation funders off funding future rail or competition related cases. And the DfT will perceive this as having been 'proven right' on the matter of GTR branded fares - because they ultimately won the war, even though they lost several battles along the way (e.g. class certification).

This case has a wider significance with the advent of GBR, since my understanding is that the plan is for all the GBR TOCs to be brought into a single legal entity. If that's the case then TOC restrictions like "GWR only" or "Northern only" would become brand restrictions, which would be wrong for essentially the same reasons that this class action was brought. Again, the DfT will feel empowered to maintain such restrictions by this 'win'.

I think the class action rules need to be relaxed to make claims like this easier to bring, because individuals have no realistic prospect of bringing a claim for an issue such as this on their own. Even those who are well-informed face enormous practical hurdles and would get back virtually nothing for their costs.

Does this mean tickets routed via different GTR brands will continue?

I would expect so, given that the DfT probably see it as revenue generative because they allow for market segmentation.

The latest information indicates that all four of the GTR brands will remain in place once GBR is launched, just with the word GBR before them... so much for integration!

 

[Bikeman78]

I guarantee you that if you pick 10 random travellers at Brighton, East Croydon or London Bridge and ask them to point out the Thameslink trains, nobody will point to a Southern one.

I agree but if you tried the same question with Southern and Gatwick Express, the result would be less conclusive. It doesn't help that they have class 387s in four liveries, and all are used on both service groups.

Edit: Apologies, I replied to a four year old post. Though even back then, red Gatwick units worked plenty of Southern services.

 

[35B]

It's very unfortunate that the class representative here died. But I understand there were a few other things that were being badly managed about the case (and I'm not necessarily saying by Mr Boyle), so even if he had survived we might have seen the same outcome anyway.

It's a real shame because this experience may well put litigation funders off funding future rail or competition related cases. And the DfT will perceive this as having been 'proven right' on the matter of GTR branded fares - because they ultimately won the war, even though they lost several battles along the way (e.g. class certification).

This case has a wider significance with the advent of GBR, since my understanding is that the plan is for all the GBR TOCs to be brought into a single legal entity. If that's the case then TOC restrictions like "GWR only" or "Northern only" would become brand restrictions, which would be wrong for essentially the same reasons that this class action was brought. Again, the DfT will feel empowered to maintain such restrictions by this 'win'.

I think the class action rules need to be relaxed to make claims like this easier to bring, because individuals have no realistic prospect of bringing a claim for an issue such as this on their own. Even those who are well-informed face enormous practical hurdles and would get back virtually nothing for their costs.


I would expect so, given that the DfT probably see it as revenue generative because they allow for market segmentation.

The latest information indicates that all four of the GTR brands will remain in place once GBR is launched, just with the word GBR before them... so much for integration!

I've very mixed feelings about the technicality behind this action, and the implications had the case been successful. I firmly dislike the way that the differentiation of Gatwick Express and other services has been managed, and wished the action success on that front - and also to set the principle that, if the law states something, it needs to be obeyed.

At the same time, I don't have a fundamental issue with market segmentation by brand - indeed, I think it's a reasonable thing to do and can be pro-consumer. As the legislation that this action was claiming under was specifically rail franchising related, and assuming that there was a specific policy intent about one franchise, one brand, then I struggle to see the necessity of keeping that restriction when GBR comes in.

As for access to justice, I think class actions are a bit of a distraction - and have their own fundamental issues.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

At the same time, I don't have a fundamental issue with market segmentation by brand - indeed, I think it's a reasonable thing to do and can be pro-consumer.

+1 for this. Unless the fares system is simplified to the point of '1 fare for A-B journeys' then it seems to me to be advantageous for customers to have separate pricing for the fast A-B trains against the slow ones: it allows a degree of flexibility that Advances (i.e. fixed train tickets) don't offer, while (at least in theory) offering a discount if you're happy to take the slow train.

 

[35B]

+1 for this. Unless the fares system is simplified to the point of '1 fare for A-B journeys' then it seems to me to be advantageous for customers to have separate pricing for the fast A-B trains against the slow ones: it allows a degree of flexibility that Advances (i.e. fixed train tickets) don't offer, while (at least in theory) offering a discount if you're happy to take the slow train.

Which is what we have elsewhere (e.g. WCML Avanti/London Midland). The issue is where, for whatever reason, the brands are part of the same company and there's a legal wrinkle that prevents differentiation. What surprises me is the unwillingness of DfT to acknowledge this by making a minor legal change.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

then it seems to me to be advantageous for customers to have separate pricing for the fast A-B trains against the slow ones:

It doesn't seem to have been followed through to Euston in particular, but at one time there was a principle introduced of having just one ToC per London main line station. That helped force the merger of Thames Trains with First Great Western out of Paddington removing a split that had existed since Network South East. The lines out of Paddington are now split again with TfL running Elizabeth Line services. I don't think there are any "TfL only" or "not GWR" fares though.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Does this mean tickets routed via different GTR brands will continue?

Under GBR, the concept of TOCs disappears and the legal structure that underpins how TOCs operate will be superseded. So it won't be the same, but it takes time to change.

 

[35B]

Under GBR, the concept of TOCs disappears and the legal structure that underpins how TOCs operate will be superseded. So it won't be the same, but it takes time to change.

In general, yes. But, pertinent to this case, what is the specific legal change that will resolve this question. Because, while I don't necessarily agree with @Watershed on the outcome, if the law doesn't change, the issue will continue to arise - and more significantly

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The lines out of Paddington are now split again with TfL running Elizabeth Line services. I don't think there are any "TfL only" or "not GWR" fares though.

This (I think) is a case where the lack of different fares is actually to the customer's advantage: I'm happy to be proved wrong (I take an interest but haven't lived round there for 30 years so I don't necessarily appreciate all the nuances) but as I understand it if you walk through the Reading barriers and pay by plastic, you're charged the TfL ('slow train') fare to go to London even if you hop on a fast (GWR) train. I don't find it hard to imagine this being changed so that you'd need a pre-booked ticket for the fast trains - and somehow I doubt if that would be done by reducing the slow fare and leaving the current TfL as the fast train fare.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The future arrangements are indeed irrelevant to this case. The issues that caused it can be addressed in the future arrangements if there is proper alignment of the legal structure and the consumer offer. There is no principle in law that prevents terms and conditions of a product restricting its use. However it must not be done in a misleading way or in such a way that it contradicts the provider's other terms.

 

[Haywain]

Because, while I don't necessarily agree with @Watershed on the outcome, if the law doesn't change, the issue will continue to arise - and more significantly

I think that the argument is that the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) do not make any allowance for tickets to be restricted by brand but only by TOC, and GTR is one TOC and therefore in breach of UK competition rules. In future, under GBR, there is no need for the TSA to exist and the NRCoT could easily be changed to allow brand specific fares.

 

[Richardr]

Which is what we have elsewhere (e.g. WCML Avanti/London Midland). The issue is where, for whatever reason, the brands are part of the same company and there's a legal wrinkle that prevents differentiation. What surprises me is the unwillingness of DfT to acknowledge this by making a minor legal change.

Does it not imply they thought that they would win and that the legal wrinkle didn't exist? As you say it wouldn't have taken much to change the law?