“If that was Google’s contention — and at times it appeared to be — then we reject it as both contrary to law and oppressive to the class’ access to justice,” the CAT wrote.
The panel observed that Google “came very close to suggesting that a claim should only proceed if a prima facie articulation of loss could be produced.” That approach would go further than the tribunal legal test requiring a claimant to set out a sufficient blueprint for trial “and act as a barrier to justice by requiring a claimant to meet an unrealistically high threshold for the articulation of their methodology.”
The CAT found that the allegations made by the claimants are triable, and that the harm to the class and damage suffered by it can be quantified at trial.
The panel said it did not consider Google’s points that some of the claims were time-barred, because they are “not preclusive” of a collective proceedings order being granted. The panel concluded that the issues of limitation and strike-out should be dealt with in the main trial.
