header-logo header-logo

21 May 2025
Issue: 8118 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
printer mail-detail

Merricks sets precedent as mammoth Mastercard case closes

UK consumers will receive between £45 and £70 each from the £200m Mastercard class action settlement

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) approved the settlement this week, in Merricks v Mastercard and others [2025] CAT 28. Eligible consumers—individuals who lived in Britain and bought goods or services from UK business that accepted Mastercard credit cards within the specified time period—will have until the end of 2025 to claim by filling out a form at mastercardconsumerclaim.co.uk. The claims process is being handled by Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions.

£100m of the settlement has been ringfenced for compensation, with unclaimed money going to the Access for Justice Foundation. Of the other £100m, £45, 567,946.28 has been ringfenced as the minimum return for funder Innsworth Capital.

Innsworth Capital challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing it should receive £179m with consumers receiving £4 each. However, this was rejected by the CAT.

Merricks’ original claim was for £14bn. Merricks, who was represented in the action by Boris Bronfentrinker of Willkie Farr & Gallagher (UK), said: ‘I started this case because I believed that Mastercard’s fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long by periods paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs.

‘As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that. During the long course of the case which involved winning a key Supreme Court decision, I have established important precedents to ensure that other collective actions that have followed mine, will have a greater prospect of succeeding.’

Merricks paid tribute to his legal opponent Mastercard for making £10m available to protect him from potential costs after Innsworth challenged the settlement.


Issue: 8118 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll