Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2013. (4th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wardhaugh, Bruce
• Is Part Of: Legal studies. Volume 34:Number 1(2014:Mar.)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 23
• Publication Date: 2014-02-04
• Subjects: Law -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Law -- Periodicals; 340.05
• DOI: 10.1111/lest.12041
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0261-3875

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>The European desire to ensure that bearers of EU rights are adequately compensated for any infringement of these rights, particularly in cases where the harm is widely diffused, and perhaps not even noticed by those affected by it, collides with another desire: to avoid the perceived excesses of an American‐style system of class actions. The excesses of these American class actions are in European discourse presented as a sort of bogeyman, which is a source of irrational fear, often presented by parental or other authority figures. But when looked at critically, the bogeyman disappears. In this paper, I examine the European (and UK) proposals for collective action. I compare them to the American regime. The flaws and purported excesses of the American regime, I argue, are exaggerated. A close, objective examination of the American regime shows this. I conclude that it is not the mythical bogeyman of a US class action that is the barrier to effective collective redress; rather, the barriers to effective, wide‐ranging group actions lie within European legal culture and traditions, particularly those mandating individual control over litigation.</p> </abstract>