Order of the Court of Appeal refusing permission to appeal the Tribunal's carriage judgment ([2025] CAT 6). The Court of Appeal found that:
1. The CAT conducted a multifactorial evaluation; it was best placed to form a view as to the weight to be attached to the various considerations involved in that assessment.
2. The CAT did not err in concluding that, although sellers of products of both Fulfilled by Amazon and Fulfilled by Merchant were affected by Amazon's conduct, this did not mean the two categories of merchant were in conflict with each other. This was a conclusion the CAT was entitled to reach on the facts.
3. It was wrong to say that the CAT had attached no weight to the two respects in which BIRA's claim was broader in scope than Professor Stephan's (that the claim is for a longer period of time and that it includes an opt-in provision for foreign merchants). Rather, the CAT considered these factors but concluded they were neutral. This is a conclusion the CAT was entitled to reach on the facts and demonstrated no error of law.
4. It was inappropriate for BIRA to suggest that the unsatisfactory nature of the original LFA (which was amended to remove the offending provision) meant that Professor Stephan was unsuitable to act as a class representative.
5. The related complaint that the CAT erred in concluding that a 'binding KC opinion' process to deal with settlement disputes was misplaced. The conclusion of the CAT was well within the ambit of its discretion and there was no need for the Court of Appeal to decide on this issue.
6. The CAT did not err in law in its approach and conclusions about the respective methodologies of the economist experts in the two claims.
Overall, the Court of Appeal found that none of the substantive grounds of appeal had a real prospect of success and that there was no other reason, let alone a compelling one, for an appeal to be heard.
