Mr. Philip Andrews:

I would consider it to be not so much a restrictive but a cautious approach. It goes back to the difficulties that would arise if a real US-style class action culture took root. It is taking root across Europe now. It is taking root in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. The example I used in my paper was to illustrate the challenges in getting the balance right. The Wendy's case has been held up as a pin-up of excessive and abusive shakedown-type litigation in which the harm is imperceptibly low. At the same time, it is also being held up as a case where a food lawyer sought to vindicate the rights of those who had been injured. The Law Society is saying we should not rush into anything because law has a tendency to evolve beyond its original intention. A cautious approach is not necessarily a bad one. At the same time, I reiterate the possibility of implementing the reforms spoken about and reflected in a Private Members' Bill, which are also reasonably cautious and balanced. They allow for a fairly comprehensive and strict legal test to be applied in the case of certification. It is the certification point in the US that is very lenient.