Govia Thameslink Railway to face legal claim worth up to $100m as over 3 million consumers are overcharged for London train fares

Govia Thameslink Railway to face legal claim worth up to $100m The claim, funded by Woodsford, is seeking compensation worth up to $100m (£77m) for routine overcharging on train tickets affecting an estimated 3.2 million passengers and has been filed against the operator of one [...]

By |2021-11-29T15:58:30+00:00November 29th, 2021|Categories: Class Action|Tags: , |

Rail Passengers Cleared to Make £93m ($128m) Legal Claim for ‘Boundary Fares’ in London

Rail Passengers Cleared to Make £93m Claim in London London’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has given the green light to rail passengers to seek compensation for overcharging by the Southeastern and South Western rail franchises by not making ‘boundary fares’ [...]

By |2021-10-29T10:34:04+00:00October 20th, 2021|Categories: Class Action|Tags: , , |

Woodsford’s Public Submission to UNCITRAL in respect of the Secretariat’s draft provisions on the regulation of third-party funding

Woodsford's response to UNCITRAL's draft provisions on litigation funding. On Friday 30th July 2021, Woodsford delivered a considered public submission to UNCITRAL in respect of the Secretariat’s draft provisions on the regulation of third-party funding in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. “Woodsford respectfully disagrees with the Working Group’s [...]

By |2021-10-12T13:43:36+00:00August 2nd, 2021|Categories: Class Action, Litigation Funding|Tags: , , |

Woodsford’s Public Submission to the Australian Treasury and Attorney General relating to the Joint Consultation Paper regarding minimum returns in class actions

Woodsford’s Public Submission to the Australian Treasury and Attorney General relating to the Joint Consultation Paper regarding minimum returns in class actions. On Friday 25th June 2021, Woodsford delivered a considered public submission to the Australian Treasury and Attorney General in respect of the Joint [...]

Merricks v Mastercard: a positive result for claimants in the UK

Merricks v Mastercard: a positive result for claimants in the UK. In an article that appeared in February's edition of 'Litigation Funding' (published by the Law Society of England & Wales), Woodsford's Alex Hickson looks at the UK Supreme Court's decision in Merricks v Mastercard dismissing Mastercard's [...]

Woodsford’s Response to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Law Commission / Te Aka Matua o te Ture Project on Class Actions and Litigation Funding

Woodsford's response to New Zealand’s Law Commission Project on Class Actions and Funding. On Wednesday 10th March, Woodsford delivered a considered response to the Aotearoa New Zealand’s Law Commission / Te Aka Matua o te Ture Project on Class Actions and Litigation Funding "Various jurisdictions that [...]

Woodsford welcomes the pro-claimant and pro-litigation funding decision of the UK Supreme Court in Merricks v Mastercard

Woodsford welcomes the pro-claimant decision of the UK Supreme Court in Merricks v Mastercard. The decision makes it easier for class representatives, backed by litigation funding, to bring ‘opt-out’ class actions, also known as collective proceedings, against large corporate defendants whose anti-competitive behaviour has caused [...]

By |2021-10-12T15:55:14+00:00December 14th, 2020|Categories: Class Action|Tags: , |

What the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act means for class actions in Ontario

Woodsford’s Ekin Cinar, based in Toronto, looks at what the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act means for class actions and how they can be financed in Ontario. On July 2, 2020, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (“Bill 161”) amending the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 [...]

By |2021-10-12T11:27:04+00:00July 16th, 2020|Categories: Canada, Class Action|Tags: , , , |

Woodsford’s Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in respect of its Inquiry into Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry in Australia

On Thursday 11th June, Woodsford delivered a considered response to the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry. You can read Woodsford's response here.  

Woodsford, delighted to have helped achieve redress for shareholders in the class action against Vocus Group in Australia, disappointed that a Common Fund Order was not granted.

Woodsford, while pleased with the results of the class action against Vocus Group in the Australian courts and the return on its investment, is disappointed that Justice Moshinsky refused the application for a Common Fund Order (CFO). The Action, filed in April 2019, alleged that [...]

By |2020-05-05T15:23:34+00:00May 5th, 2020|Categories: Australia, Charlie Morris, Class Action|Tags: , , |
Go to Top