Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated [2017] CAT 18 (21 July 2017)

Application to delay judgment is misconceived as judicial review would allow proceedings to continue on existing claims without need for fresh proceedings; limitation period does not bar this.

Citation: [2017] CAT 18
Parties: Applicant: Mr Merricks; Respondent: Unknown
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 21 July 2017
Procedural Posture: Urgent Application / Pre Judgment, Application to Delay Handing Down Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Collective Proceedings Order, Limitation Period, Judgment Embargo, Judicial Review Procedure

Competition Law Judicial Review Collective Proceedings Order Limitation Period Judgment Embargo Judicial Review Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr Merricks

Applicant

Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Pre Judgment, Application to Delay Handing Down Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether judgment should be delayed to preserve applicant's ability to seek judicial review
2 Effect of limitation period on ability to commence fresh proceedings after judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Application to delay judgment is misconceived as judicial review would allow proceedings to continue on existing claims without need for fresh proceedings; limitation period does not bar this.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Judgment will be handed down