Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2016] CAT 23 (22 November 2016)

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2016] CAT 23 (22 November 2016)

None of the five grounds advanced by MasterCard for permission to appeal had a real prospect of success or raised a compelling reason for appeal; the Tribunal's findings on liability and damages were properly reasoned and supported by evidence.

Citation
[2016] CAT 23
Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd; Defendant: MasterCard Incorporated; Defendant: MasterCard International Incorporated; Defendant: MasterCard Europe SA
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Competition Damages Claim / Ruling on Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Restriction of Competition, Counterfactual Analysis, Damages, Pass on Defence, Permission to Appeal

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Claimant

MasterCard Incorporated

Defendant

MasterCard International Incorporated

Defendant

MasterCard Europe SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Damages Claim / Ruling on Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on liability and damages findings
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its counterfactual analysis
  3. 3 Whether damages should be reduced for lack of loss of profits or pass-on

Ratio Decidendi

None of the five grounds advanced by MasterCard for permission to appeal had a real prospect of success or raised a compelling reason for appeal; the Tribunal's findings on liability and damages were properly reasoned and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused