The reasons for introducing a form of collective action are almost self-evident. Where plaintiffs have claims which are more or less identical, it would not be efficient to have each of them tried separately. From a plaintiff’s perspective, litigation costs are reduced dramatically by having one law firm represent the group, rather than having to hire lawyers on an individual basis. It suddenly becomes feasible to bring an action for claims that would not be worth pursuing individually because the litigation costs would outweigh the potential benefits.
From a defendant’s perspective, the threat of an efficient collective action will be an incentive to act responsibly, both in preventing injury and in finding a remedy, once an injury has occurred. From the perspective of society at large, civil liability is an important instrument in controlling the behaviour of potential defendants, although few countries rely on this alone. For example, regulators play a role in controlling the behaviour of, among others, pharmaceutical manufacturers, banks and insurers. Furthermore, collective actions help to reduce the workload of the courts, both at first instance and on appeal. By minimising the risk of inconsistent judgments, collective actions decrease the number of appeals to which such judgments inevitably give rise.
