Ruling (Permission to Appeal)

Ruling of the Tribunal dismissing Amazon's application for permission to appeal the joint certification judgment certifying the claims brought by both Mr Hammond and Professor Stephan ([2025] CAT 42). 

In relation to the Hammond Claim: 

• Ground 1 challenged the inclusion of Hammond’s exclusionary abuse allegation, arguing his expert’s methodology was inconsistent with that of the Stephan claim. The Tribunal found it lawful and practical for Hammond to rely on Stephan’s expert, given the cases will be tried together and allege the same abuse.
• Ground 2 concerned Hammond’s litigation funding agreement. Amazon argued he should have re-entered the market for better terms after resolving the carriage dispute with Ms Hunter. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that any concerns about funder returns would be addressed following damages or settlement.

As to the Stephan Claim: 

• Ground 1 challenged the methodology of Stephan’s expert, Dr Houpis, but the Tribunal found his approach legally sound and economically robust. Disputes over omitted variables and model adjustments were considered factual matters, not grounds for appeal.
• Ground 2 alleged a conflict of interest within the proposed class. The Tribunal dismissed this, noting that similar arguments had already been rejected and no concerns had been raised by class members.