Merricks v Mastercard (CPO application)

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Merricks v Mastercard (CPO application)
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related cases

Merricks v Mastercard (CPO application)

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 April 2019; it is no longer maintained.

NOTE—In July 2019, the Supreme Court granted Mastercard permission to appeal.

See further, timeline, commentary and related cases.

Case facts

OutlineAppeal against the CAT’s judgment of 21 July 2017 which rejected an application for a collective proceedings order in relation to potential follow-on actions against Mastercard.

Latest developmentOn 16 April 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in which it allowed the appeal and remitted the CPO application back to the CAT for re-hearing.

In particular, the Court of Appeal ruled that the CAT applied the wrong test in assessing the commonality of the claims—at the certification stage the proposed representative should not be required to demonstrate more than that he has a real prospect of success (in this case in reference to the issue of pass-on), and the CAT was premature and wrong to have refused certification due to the proposed method of distribution.

Parties• Appellant—Mr Walter Hugh Merricks CBE (Merricks). Merricks is the former chief ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

• Respondents—Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated and Mastercard Europe S.P.R.L (together, Mastercard). Mastercard is the international payment organisation responsible for managing and coordinating the Mastercard and Maestro card payment systems which includes, amongst other things, establishing

Popular documents