The Competition Appeal Tribunal on Thursday heard extensive argument over an “extraordinary” application by class representative Dr Rachael Kent to extend the end date of her App-Store collective proceedings against Apple up to 23 October 2025, the date of judgment, and to add new class members whose purchases post-date the period considered at trial.
The historic judgment awarded the class approximately £1.5 billion in losses suffered by UK App-Store users as a result of Apple’s anti-competitive practices.
The amendment bid dominated a hearing on consequential matters following the Tribunal’s liability judgment of 23 October. The panel, chaired by Mr Justice Miles, said the issue raised difficult and novel questions for collective proceedings and would require careful consideration.
Class representative: Tribunal has jurisdiction; justice requires inclusion of full loss period
Dr Kent argued the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Rules 32 and 115 to amend the claim and vary its earlier orders, emphasising that it is not functus officio while consequential matters remain unresolved and the final order has not been perfected.
Her counsel said the rules require “existing claims” only at the time of amendment and that, following Sony, the first lawful moment to extend a continuing-loss claim to the date of judgment was when judgment itself was handed down. Apple, they argued, faced no prejudice: the infringement was found to be continuing, and the evidential record already included post-November 2024 material. Excluding later losses would arbitrarily deny compensation to identically-situated consumers.
Apple: “Extraordinary” and unfair attempt to reopen the case
Apple vigorously opposed the application, calling it “really extraordinary” and “manifestly unjust”. Its counsel said the Tribunal was functus officio on liability and on the defined claim period, because the judgment contained findings and orders on the substance of the case.
Apple argued the amendment would amount to issuing a new judgment on issues never tried, depriving it of the opportunity to defend itself in relation to later alleged losses. It also said new class members could not be added post-trial because, under Sony, they did not have extant claims within the certified class. Allowing the amendment now, Apple said, was a “one-way bet”.
Tribunal: fairness concerns and need for system-wide guidance
The Tribunal questioned both sides on the distinction between extending claims for existing class members and adding entirely new ones after trial. Mr Justice Miles observed that allowing individuals to join after seeing the trial result “is a bit odd”, but collective proceedings do not map neatly onto opt-in litigation.
The Tribunal signalled that, whatever its decision, broader guidance might be needed for future cases on how rolling or continuing loss periods should be handled following Sony. Further short submissions will be taken on authorities concerning finality and variation of orders.
Permission to appeal refused
The Tribunal also confirmed that Apple’s application for permission to appeal the main judgment had been refused, as set out in its Reasoned Order of 13 November 2025.
Next steps
The Tribunal will issue a written ruling on:
- whether it has jurisdiction to amend the class period post-judgment;
- if so, whether it should extend the period for existing class members, new class members, both, or neither.
Other consequential issues — including damages-payment mechanics, costs, confidentiality and remaining directions — will be addressed after the amendment ruling.
The case is Dr. Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd
