An opt-out class action procedure is needed to provide access to justice for consumers wanting to bring collective or multi-party claims, the government is to be told.

The Gazette can reveal that, following an 18-month process of consultation and research which found ‘overwhelming evidence’ that meritorious consumer claims are not being pursued, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) is set to formally recommend a series of measures to encourage better enforcement of consumer rights.

However, the CJC’s proposals also emphasise the need to protect defendants from non-­meritorious litigation.

The CJC report says existing collective redress mechanisms, such as group actions, could be improved. The blueprint puts the court at the heart of the new regime, introducing a certification process in which it would apply a rigorous merits test before allowing a case to proceed. The court would decide whether an opt-in or opt-out action is most appropriate.

The report makes it clear that the CJC is not promoting US-style class actions; in particular it says there should be full costs shifting prior to certification. It would then be up to the judge to decide the costs ­liability of the parties. Financial backing for such cases is most likely to come from third-party funders.

It also recommends allowing courts in opt-out cases to award aggregate damages for the whole class of claimants. In the event of an opt-out case settling, the court would hold a ‘fairness hearing’ to review the terms.

CJC chief executive Robert Musgrove said: ‘The CJC has engaged in extensive and wide-ranging consultation on the subject. The process has established a need for procedural reform to allow a broader range of representatives to bring claims on behalf of classes of consumers and businesses, while building in stringent safeguards to avoid a proliferation of unmeritorious litigation.’