Merricks v Mastercard Inc
The Supreme Court set a relatively low threshold for certifying collective proceedings for competition claims on behalf of millions of consumers.
Facts
Walter Merricks, a former Financial Ombudsman, sought to bring collective proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of about 46 million consumers, claiming about £14 billion in damages from Mastercard. He alleged that Mastercard's unlawful interchange fees, charged to retailers when customers paid by card, had been passed on to consumers in higher prices. The Tribunal refused to certify the claim, on the basis that it would be too difficult to calculate the loss suffered by each consumer and to distribute damages.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the Tribunal had applied the wrong test and sent the case back for reconsideration. Lord Briggs said that the Competition Act 1998, as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, had created a new collective proceedings regime designed to provide access to justice for consumers who would otherwise have no practical way of claiming damages. At the certification stage, the Tribunal should not refuse to certify a claim merely because the calculation of damages would be difficult, and aggregate damages could be assessed without proof of individual loss. The claim was later certified and settled in 2025.
Related cases on civil justice and procedure
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
- Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 655, [2005] 1 WLR 3055
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119
- Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926
- Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2000
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
- Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
