header-logo header-logo

14 May 2021 / Jack Castle , Henry Warwick KC
Issue: 7932 / Categories: Features , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Collective actions: better together?

48972
Mastercard v Merricks—Henry Warwick QC & Jack Castle report on an important year for collective proceedings & representative actions
  • In December 2020, the Supreme Court clarified the approach for assessing suitability for collective competition proceedings.
  • The approach may encourage wider use of such procedures in cases where the quantification of loss presents a challenge in underlying individual claims.

In Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51, [2020] All ER (D) 67 (Dec), the Supreme Court has clarified the requirements for certification of collective proceedings in competition cases. This is a significant decision, likely to be relied upon by claimants seeking to recover follow-on damages for competition law infringements where difficult questions arise as to the quantification of loss and proposals for the distribution of any award of damages to the certified class.

But the careful analysis of the common law as to quantification of loss, and the principled approach of the majority of the court to assessing suitability for collective proceedings, may encourage wider use of collective action

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll