The deal that consumer group Which? has agreed with JJB Sports over price-fixing in football shirts is an inspired move that keeps everyone happy. Critics said that Which? could never pull it off — or that if they did, the number of people who would actually get compensation would be so low as to render the whole process a waste of time. JJB would have to pay out virtually nothing and, because of the way UK law on consumer redress works, only the 1,000 fans who bothered to sign up to the group's class action in advance would get any money.

Until recently, this looked like the most likely outcome. But in a surprise move, Which? and its lawyers at Clyde & Co have negotiated a settlement that covers anyone who bought one of the relevant football shirts from any of the price-fixing retailers regardless of whether they have already signed-up — and they don’t even need to produce a receipt.

This is good news for a number of reasons. First, the pool of people who can now be compensated has vastly increased. Since the fundamental principle of consumer class actions is to compensate the individuals who lost out, this has to be a good thing. That people may not bother to make a claim is a valid but secondary point. The fact is Which? have made it possible and reasonably easy for them to do so. We cannot blame Which? for consumer inertia.

Likewise, we cannot blame Which? for the numbers. While its fair to say that £10 for a shirt with a label and £5 for one without is not going to raise the pulses of any JJB executives or shareholders, in light of recent events it’s not a bad deal. Which? had originally asked for exemplary — or punitive — damages that would fetch consumers a much higher sum. But a recent High Court case on a similar issue in the vitamins market made this much less likely after a judge ruled that those who had been cheated were not entitled to exemplary damages. So, although Which? could have fought all the way and demanded higher compensation, this was always far from guaranteed.

But, more importantly, in agreeing a settlement that includes anyone who was affected — regardless of whether they signed up in advance — Which? has solved its own biggest problem, that of a tiny number of eligible claimants. It has also established a useful precedent for how such cases can be dealt with in the future.

That does not mean that British Airways, Virgin or any other businesses that may face consumer lawsuits over price-fixing will agree to settle on the same terms, but it shows it can be done where the numbers make sense.

The fact that JJB has agreed to an all-inclusive settlement may also help convince Parliament that it is not such a bad thing. The Office of Fair Trading — aware of the limitations of the "must sign up in advance’ regime" — has asked the Government to allow all-inclusive settlements in appropriate cases. Businesses said this was unfair and raised the spectre of the American system (and its abuses) to argue against such a move. But if JJB has made a commercial decision to agree to it in this case, then it sends a powerful message that it cannot be such a terrible, unthinkable policy.

As for JJB, they must also be smiling. Yes, they will have to pay £20,000 up front and that amount could rise substantially - but it probably won’t. And even if it does, JJB has essentially bought itself legal certainty that the matter is behind it for what must be a relatively modest sum.

In another clever move, apart from the 1,000 original Which? claimants who are already signed up, everyone else will have to visit a JJB store to present their shirt and register for compensation. So even those who do receive their £5 or £10 will have to walk past racks of gleaming sportswear to get it — and some of them are bound to spot something they like on the way to the customer services desk.

So JJB has solved its legal problems, curried favour with the public and found a novel way to get people through its doors at the start of a retail slump.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle