header-logo header-logo

17 February 2021 / Lucy Rigby
Issue: 7921 / Categories: Features , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Merricks: setting the standard

39783
Setting the standard for opt-out collective redress: the Supreme Court’s judgment in Merricks, reported by Lucy Rigby
  • The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Merricks sets the standard which existing and future opt-out collective actions will be required to meet at the certification stage.
  • This judgment is a seminal one for the country’s young opt-out regime and a ringing endorsement of the principles behind the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  • The judgment is consumer-friendly and it is expected that more opt-out collective actions will now be filed.

What standard ought an opt-out collective claim be required to meet to proceed to trial? That, in essence, was the question before the Supreme Court in Mastercard Incorporated and others v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51, [2020] All ER (D) 67 (Dec). The Supreme Court’s answer, delivered in December of last year, constitutes a resounding endorsement of opt-out redress and the most significant ruling to date for the UK’s fledgling opt-out collective regime for infringements of competition law.

Justice delayed

Many judgments

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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