The opt-out class action involves a unique participant, viz, the absent class member whose claim is prosecuted by a representative claimant, who does not opt-out of the action nor do anything else in relation to it, and yet who is bound by its outcome. In a cross-border class action, the means by which a domestic court may validly assert personal jurisdiction over absent class members who are resident outside of that court’s jurisdiction remains perhaps the single biggest conundrum in modern class actions jurisprudence. The United Kingdom (UK) legislature requires that non-resident class members compulsorily opt-in to the UK’s competition law class action, in order to demonstrably signify their consent to the jurisdiction of the UK court. However, that legislative enactment is unusual, and becoming even rarer, in modern class actions statutes. The comparative analysis undertaken in this article demonstrates that where that type of statutory provision is not enacted, then the judicially-developed “anchors” by which to assert personal jurisdiction over non-resident class members are multifarious, diverse, and conflicting, across the leading class actions jurisdictions. This landscape yields important lessons for UK law-makers, and strongly suggests that the UK legislature’s approach towards non-resident class members represents “best practice”, in what is a complex conundrum of class actions law.

中文翻译：

---

对非居民阶级成员主张个人管辖权：英国的比较见解

选择退出集体诉讼涉及唯一的参与者，即缺席的集体成员，其主张由代表性申索人起诉，该代表既不选择退出也不对该行动做任何其他事情，但受其约束其结果。在跨境集体诉讼中，国内法院可以有效地对不在该法院管辖范围内的缺席集体成员主张个人管辖权，这可能仍然是现代集体诉讼法理学中最大的难题。联合王国（UK）立法机关要求非居民集体成员强制选择参加英国竞争法集体诉讼，以明确表明他们同意英国法院的管辖权。但是，在现代集体诉讼法规中，这种立法的制定是不寻常的，甚至变得越来越少。本文所进行的比较分析表明，如果没有颁布这种类型的法律规定，则通过司法制定的“锚”来主张对非居民阶级成员的个人管辖权，这在整个领导阶层中是多种多样，多样且冲突的。集体诉讼管辖权。这种情况为英国立法者提供了重要的教训，并强烈表明，在复杂的集体诉讼法难题中，英国立法机关对待非居民集体成员的做法代表了“最佳实践”。领先的集体诉讼司法管辖区。这种情况为英国立法者提供了重要的教训，并强烈表明，在复杂的集体诉讼法难题中，英国立法机关对待非居民集体成员的做法代表了“最佳实践”。领先的集体诉讼司法管辖区。这种情况为英国立法者提供了重要的教训，并强烈表明，在复杂的集体诉讼法难题中，英国立法机关对待非居民集体成员的做法代表了“最佳实践”。