header-logo header-logo

20 May 2022 / Eleanor Leedham
Issue: 7979 / Categories: Features , Collective action
printer mail-detail

Merricks v Mastercard: watch this space

81950
Eleanor Leedham reports on lessons learned from Mr Merricks’ multi-billion-pound action against Mastercard: what could this mean for other collective proceedings?
  • The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled in March that Mr Merricks’s arguments on the domicile date and an amendment application in his ongoing action against Mastercard had been successful.
  • The UK landscape for opt-out actions continues to emerge, with five more opt-out collective claims certified by the CAT since Mr Merricks’s claim began in August 2021.

In March this year, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) determined that around three million deceased persons are automatically part of a class of 46 million on whose behalf Mr Walter Merricks, former head of the Financial Ombudsmen Service, is claiming paid higher prices because of excessive fees charged by Mastercard. Each member of the class could potentially receive around £300, should Mr Merricks succeed in the proceedings.

Getting up to date

The CAT’s judgment on consequential matters (1266/7/7/16 Walter Hugh Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated and Others [2022] CAT 13) follows a case management conference (CMC) that took place on 14 January

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll