header-logo header-logo

26 February 2025
Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Competition , Collective action , Litigation funding , Consumer
printer mail-detail

£200m Mastercard settlement confirmed

The Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) has approved the £200m settlement between Mastercard and Walter Merricks, in a claim initially valued at £14bn.

Merricks acted as class representative in the opt-out collective proceedings against the bank over multilateral interchange fees charged by Mastercard between 1992 and 2007. The settlement, agreed in December, was challenged by litigation funder Innsworth Capital as too low.

Approving the settlement last week, however, CAT member Hodge Malek KC said: ‘Mr Merricks has tirelessly fought for the benefit of class members over the last eight years and that is appreciated.

‘The fact that the outcome has been disappointing in the light of how the evidence and the rulings had developed does not detract from that.’

Merricks’ solicitor, Boris Bronfentrinker, partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, said: ‘These proceedings started off as a landmark case in setting the foundation for collective actions in the UK and it will end being as equally ground-breaking in a settlement achieved under heavy attack and challenge by the litigation funder.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll