Thesis award for research into stalled mass claims: 'threshold often higher than expected'

Not always, concludes law student Daan Bieshaar in his now award-winning thesis research. In a comparative legal study of the Dutch WAMCA and an English regime for collective damages claims, he finds that many Dutch cases founder before a court even reaches the merits. "The WAMCA was intended as a powerful instrument for victims of mass damage," Bieshaar writes. "In practice, however, the threshold for being allowed to represent those victims in proceedings often proves higher than expected."

His thesis recently won Bieshaar the Hermes Kring Londen Thesis Award 2025, with the jury praising him for the quality of his work.

Why do collective actions stall?

Legislation, parliamentary history, case law: Bieshaar drew on all of it to pinpoint exactly where the hurdles lie. "The WAMCA imposes various requirements on organisations seeking to litigate on behalf of a large group of injured parties. Among other things, they must demonstrate that they are representative, professionally organised and adequately funded. These safeguards are intended to prevent frivolous and/or bad-faith proceedings," says Bieshaar.

And that, according to Bieshaar, is where the problem lies. "Legal scholars have long argued that these admissibility requirements are applied so strictly that many proceedings become bogged down in debates over formalities. As a result, it often takes years before a court gets to the question the case is actually about."

That criticism does not stand alone. The statutory evaluation of the WAMCA, published in late 2025 and carried out by researchers from Erasmus School of Law among others, shows that the preliminary phase consumes so much time that in the act's first five years not a single collective settlement of damages has taken place under the WAMCA regime.

A look across the Channel

To explore whether things could be done differently, Bieshaar turned to England. A comparable regime exists there, in which representatives of injured parties must first obtain permission through what is known as a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the specialised tribunal for these cases.

On paper the requirements may resemble those of the Dutch WAMCA, yet the English regime produces very different results. Where Dutch proceedings regularly founder at the admissibility stage, the tribunal proves far more willing to let cases go forward. According to Bieshaar, the main explanation lies not so much in the rules themselves as in the way they are applied.

"The Competition Appeal Tribunal shows more flexibility, allows parties room to remedy defects and is prepared to adapt when circumstances call for it," says Bieshaar. "It shows that a virtually comparable assessment framework can nonetheless lead to entirely different outcomes, and that small differences in approach can determine whether proceedings move forward or stand still for years."

A living guideline 

Bieshaar's thesis also explores possible solutions. His main recommendation is a 'living guideline' modelled on the English example: a regularly updated practical guide that gives courts and claim organisations something to hold on to when applying the admissibility test. At present, the outcome can still differ from case to case and from court to court.

He also argues that parts of the test could be designed differently. When assessing whether an organisation is representative, for instance, the focus should be less on how many people it has behind it and more on the quality of that support. That would particularly help foundations established specifically for a single case, which cannot point to a base of support built up over many years.

In addition, Bieshaar proposes less far-reaching changes, ranging from a legally binding governance code to clarification of the lighter regime for idealistic (public-interest) actions.

Balancing accessibility and protection

Change may be needed, but Bieshaar warns that lowering thresholds is not an end in itself. The WAMCA's safeguards were not introduced without reason, he argues. "They are meant to prevent interest organisations from litigating without sufficient support, expertise or transparency."

As he sees it, the challenge lies in striking a new balance: a system that becomes more accessible to injured parties without losing sight of the quality of collective proceedings.

From thesis to practice 

That small differences can make one procedure run almost flawlessly while another stagnates was one of the major surprises for Bieshaar while writing his thesis. His own response to the subject matter surprised him as well. "Although I was already interested in the topic when I began my thesis, that interest kept growing as I immersed myself in the subject."

The crowning moment came recently in London, at the presentation of the thesis award in the historic Reform Club. In the intimate setting of this private members' club, there was generous attention for the winner's work. A special experience for Bieshaar: "Not only because of the venue, but also because of the personal attention. The societal relevance of the research, and the contribution young researchers can make to their field, came up several times."