Portland has published its 2025 annual analysis on class action litigation, and the results give some real food for thought in the direction such group litigation may be taking.
Consciousness is on the up, with the highest levels of awareness in those aged 25-34 (53%) which may suggest that the drivers for awareness are via digital engagement and media.
The 10 sectors where the public most support class actions are:
- Healthcare – 54%, and 60% in those aged 55
- Finance – 53%
- Energy – 50%
- Technology – 45%
- Construction – 41%
- Manufacturing – 39%
- Transport – 37%
- Retailers – 36%
- Education – 33%
- Agriculture – 27%
This sits alongside a finding that the principal driver for consumer class action participation is the perception that the defendant did something wrong and the action can hold them to account.
Only 27% cited the prospect of receiving a large amount of money as the main motivator for joining the action with the motivators therefore suggesting that in some actions financial resolution may not be the only option at a defendant’s fingertips. 40% said they would be less likely to join a class action if the organisation accused issued a full apology.
Furthermore, 35% said they would forgive the healthcare sector if there was a redress scheme, with 30% saying the same for education. That may reflect the perception that the already stretched public purse sits behind such claims.
In contrast, only 27% said they would accept the same in a technology action, and 25% if the claim related to the finance sector. Deeper pockets and commercial reputation may be a driver for this variance in attitude.
However, there is a perception issue. 68% stated that they believed that class actions were often benefiting the lawyers and funders involved.
Litigation funding is under scrutiny with Civil Justice Council recommendations, published on 2 June 2025. These reflect what seems to be the public appetite for further transparency and advocate “light touch” regulation of litigation funding including the codification that funders should not control funded litigation, conflict of interest provisions, and early disclosure of the fact of funding, funder and source. There is also a recommendation for statutory reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR to make it clear litigation funding arrangements are not damages based agreements. For those litigating “mass claims”, there are also recommendations for a new pre-action protocol, enhanced costs budgeting and costs management for funded collective proceedings, representative actions and group litigation.
It therefore appears to be the case that there continues to be a slowly growing public interest in class action litigation as a means for redress which insurers and defendants need to be prepared for. Whether large scale consumer actions or incident driven group claims, early identification and action will be paramount to implement strategies to defend or formulate appropriate responses in view of the reputational and financial risks relating to such actions.
Our experience in handling group actions tells us that early legal support and effective cooperation and management is vital to tackle the broad and complex issues arising from such claims, and address the various moving parts inevitably involved.
