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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll