header-logo header-logo

Collective actions: better together?

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll