header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 May 2022 / Eleanor Leedham
Issue: 7979 / Categories: Features , Collective action
printer mail-detail

Merricks v Mastercard: watch this space

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
81950
Eleanor Leedham reports on lessons learned from Mr Merricks’ multi-billion-pound action against Mastercard: what could this mean for other collective proceedings?
  • The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled in March that Mr Merricks’s arguments on the domicile date and an amendment application in his ongoing action against Mastercard had been successful.
  • The UK landscape for opt-out actions continues to emerge, with five more opt-out collective claims certified by the CAT since Mr Merricks’s claim began in August 2021.

In March this year, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) determined that around three million deceased persons are automatically part of a class of 46 million on whose behalf Mr Walter Merricks, former head of the Financial Ombudsmen Service, is claiming paid higher prices because of excessive fees charged by Mastercard. Each member of the class could potentially receive around £300, should Mr Merricks succeed in the proceedings.

Getting up to date

The CAT’s judgment on consequential matters (1266/7/7/16 Walter Hugh Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated and Others [2022] CAT 13) follows

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll