On Friday 11 December, the Supreme Court handed down its
long-awaited decision in Merricks v MasterCard, dismissing
MasterCard's appeal and remitting the claim to the Competition
Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for consideration. The judgment heralds a
more 'representative-friendly' regime for those wishing to
pursue opt-out competition claims for collective redress.
Collective competition proceedings are governed by section 47B
of the Competition Act 1998. The regime was introduced by the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allows for opt-in and opt-out,
follow-on or stand-alone competition claims to be brought in the
CAT. Despite the passage of five years, no claim has yet been
granted a collective proceedings order (CPO). The first claim,
brought by Dorothy Gibson against Pride Mobility Products Limited,
failed for economic reasons; and Merricks' claim came next.
Where Gibson's claim was ultimately determined to be too small,
Merricks' claim is huge by any measure - he is seeking
