NoteMachine UK Limited v The Payment Systems Regulator

NoteMachine UK Limited v The Payment Systems Regulator

The PSR correctly concluded that s.108 FSBRA was engaged, requiring it to proceed under Regulation 103 PSR2017 rather than s.57 FSBRA. The PSR properly defined and applied the concept of discrimination, and its competition law analysis was rational. The PSR was not required to consider the s.62 FSBRA duty as the precondition for its application was not met. Even if there were errors, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same.

Parties
Claimant: NoteMachine UK Limited; Defendant: The Payment Systems Regulator; Interested Party: LINK Scheme Holdings; Interested Party: LINK Scheme Ltd; Interested Party: Your Cash Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Payment Systems Regulation, Competition Act 1998, Interchange Fees, Discrimination, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Competition Law Financial Regulation Judicial Review Payment Systems Regulation Competition Act 1998 Interchange Fees Discrimination +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NoteMachine UK Limited

Claimant

The Payment Systems Regulator

Defendant

LINK Scheme Holdings

Interested Party

LINK Scheme Ltd

Interested Party

Your Cash Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Systems Regulator misapplied statutory provisions by refusing to consider the claimant's application under s.57 FSBRA and instead proceeding under Regulation 103 PSR2017
  2. 2 Whether the PSR failed to apply the concept of discrimination correctly under Regulation 103(3)(b) PSR2017
  3. 3 Whether the PSR failed to comply with its duty under s.62 FSBRA to consider whether it was more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The PSR correctly concluded that s.108 FSBRA was engaged, requiring it to proceed under Regulation 103 PSR2017 rather than s.57 FSBRA. The PSR properly defined and applied the concept of discrimination, and its competition law analysis was rational. The PSR was not required to consider the s.62 FSBRA duty as the precondition for its application was not met. Even if there were errors, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed