Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors

Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors

The general rule under PILMPA 1995 s.11 is displaced by s.12 due to the collective proceedings context and the aggregate loss suffered by UK consumers; limitation/prescription bars claims for pre-1997/1998 transactions as accrued rights are not abrogated by omission of rule 31(4); Mastercard is precluded from advancing alternative exemptible EEA MIFs as the Commission Decision found no level of MIF justified for the relevant period.

Parties
Respondent/class Representative: Walter Hugh Merricks CBE; Appellant/defendant: Mastercard Incorporated; Appellant/defendant: Mastercard International Incorporated; Appellant/defendant: Mastercard Europe S. P. R. L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal by Mastercard on applicable law and exemptibility dismissed; permission to appeal on limitation/prescription refused.
Legal Topics
Limitation and Prescription, Applicable Law, Abuse of Process, Collective Proceedings, Damages Assessment, EU Competition Law, Article 101 TFEU, Follow on Claims
Competition Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Limitation and Prescription Applicable Law Abuse of Process Collective Proceedings Damages Assessment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Hugh Merricks CBE

Respondent/class Representative

Mastercard Incorporated

Appellant/defendant

Mastercard International Incorporated

Appellant/defendant

Mastercard Europe S. P. R. L.

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation/prescription bars claims for pre-1997/1998 transactions
  2. 2 Which law governs claims for remote purchases from foreign merchants
  3. 3 Whether Mastercard can advance a counterfactual based on alternative exemptible EEA MIFs

Ratio Decidendi

The general rule under PILMPA 1995 s.11 is displaced by s.12 due to the collective proceedings context and the aggregate loss suffered by UK consumers; limitation/prescription bars claims for pre-1997/1998 transactions as accrued rights are not abrogated by omission of rule 31(4); Mastercard is precluded from advancing alternative exemptible EEA MIFs as the Commission Decision found no level of MIF justified for the relevant period.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Mastercard on applicable law and exemptibility dismissed; permission to appeal on limitation/prescription refused.

Orders

  • Applicable law for remote purchases is English or Scots law under PILMPA 1995 s.12 and common law exception.
  • Claims for pre-1997 (English law) and pre-1998 (Scots law) transactions are time-barred.