header-logo header-logo

11 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Group action floodgates open after Mastercard

Lawyers have hailed the Supreme Court’s endorsement of opt-out group actions, in its decision Merricks v Mastercard [2020] UKSC 51

The £14bn claim against Mastercard, a collective action on behalf of 46 million consumers, is the first opt-out action to be certified―other cases have been paused pending the Supreme Court’s judgment, including one brought on behalf of millions of train passengers for overpriced tickets. The possibility of opt-out collective actions on behalf of those harmed by anti-competitive conduct was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The case will now return to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which previously refused to certify the claim.

Anthony Maton, global vice-chair at Hausfeld, which represented Which? in the case, said: ‘This is a revolution in English law. 

‘This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court has given the green light for collective actions to be brought on a straightforward and easily understood basis. It paves the way for millions of consumers and thousands of small businesses to be able to bring collective actions against those who have breached competition law―the biggest banks in selling foreign exchange, the train companies in selling fares, the big tech companies who have misused their dominant market position―facilitating access to justice and allowing for the collective exercise of rights which would otherwise go unvindicated.’

Maton explained the ruling sets the standard which future claims will be required to meet for the purposes of certification and clarifies that prospective claimants should not face a ‘mini-trial’ or be expected to provide an overly onerous level of evidence at an early stage.

The case was launched in 2016 by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks on behalf of Mastercard customers and concerns the European Commission’s finding that the card issuer charged inflated fees on consumer card transactions between 1992 and 2008.

Samantha Silver, partner at Kennedys, said the decision ‘indicates that the tribunal has been too strict in the way they have previously approached these applications.

‘The potential is now here for the floodgates to be opened to further group actions.’

Rocio Concha, Which? director of policy and advocacy, said: ‘This is a hugely important win for consumers.

‘Which? has campaigned long and hard for an effective collective redress scheme and the Supreme Court's ruling will increase access to justice for consumers and set the standard for collective claims of this nature to proceed to trial. From today, the route to collective redress will be fairer, simpler and more attainable, and many cases that are currently on hold will be able to proceed to trial, ensuring victims of anti-competitive behaviour can get the justice they deserve.’

Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll