header-logo header-logo

17 June 2026
Issue: 8166 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding , Competition , Collective action , Costs
printer mail-detail

Merricks funder loses settlement challenge

Litigation funder Innsworth Capital has lost its case over its share of the £200m settlement in former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks’ lengthy opt-out collective action against Mastercard

Merricks’ claim, launched in 2016, was initially valued at about £14bn but eventually settled for £200m. Innsworth argued for equal division, giving potential claimants £4.50 with the unclaimed amount (in practice, all of it) going to the funder.

However, the High Court held the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was correct to allocate about £68m to Innsworth, representing its costs in the case plus a profit of about £22m, in R (on the application of Innsworth Capital) v CAT [2026] EWHC 1393 (Admin).

Merricks hailed the result ‘a complete vindication’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll