Mr. Philip Andrews:

Before I address that question, my understanding of the case heard in the Supreme Court, which was referred to earlier, is that the former Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Denham, recognised that a statute dealing with maintenance and champerty, the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1634, prohibited this type of activity. The former Chief Justice, therefore, said that this would need to be changed by the Legislature. At the same time, it is also clear that the Irish courts, particularly in the context of more recent judicial appointments, are taking a more activist view on what might be permissible in respect of funding. I refer the committee to the 2022 case of Atlas GP Limited v. Kelly & Ors. In her judgment, Ms Justice Egan said: "The range of interests and relationships which may justify the provision of funding is not closed and is properly the subject of development by the common law". She also noted that the law in this field has undergone, and will undergo, considerable development. Regarding the Law Society's position, I apologise if I have said it wrong, but we are in favour of the Bill. It seems to us to be a good step, but we think the legislation could go further. Our view simply reiterates what was previously set out in the LRC report and endorsed by the Kelly report, which is to give consumers direct access to collective, multiparty actions for themselves.

That brings me to the Deputy's question on the opt-out system. My understanding is that the UK, even if it is not a member state of the EU anymore, has a possibility for opt-out in the context of its competition appeal tribunal. The benefit of that opt-out system, and there is one, is that many of these cases may be settled, and a settlement is generally better in that it avoids the litigation costs. If an opt-out class action case is settled, then the entire action has been settled. It does have that efficiency option.

If an opt-in action is settled, there may still be others remaining outside of that tent that will come after you again. There are benefits and arguments on either front. However, it is clear in the heads that the Department is going for the opt-in process.

I cannot say I know anything about the funding in Quebec. I know the funding in the UK is significant third-party funding. A wave of consumer collective actions has been taking place in the two years since the UK Supreme Court took a lenient assessment on certification. Those actions are being backed by large funding, effectively venture funds which will take some of the profit from those actions if they win.