Latest Updates
On 3 December 2024, Walter Merricks ("the Class Representative") reached a settlement agreement with Mastercard in which Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million (the “Settlement Sum”) to the Class Representative to distribute to members of the class (referred to as “Represented Persons”). Mastercard agreed to the settlement without any admission of liability. A settlement of collective proceedings requires the approval of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which will only approve the settlement if it considers it to be “just and reasonable” and in the best interests of the class. Mr Merricks and Mastercard filed a joint application with the Tribunal asking it to approve the settlement on 17 January 2025.
The Tribunal considered the settlement at a hearing that took place from 19 to 21 February 2025. Represented Persons were entitled to make written / oral submissions to the Tribunal on the settlement terms, but no Represented Persons chose to do so. The Class Representative’s litigation funder, (“Innsworth”), was given permission by the Tribunal to intervene and to put forward its arguments in opposition to the settlement. Having heard all the arguments, the Tribunal approved the settlement, stating that “we have no doubt that the settlement at £200 million, on the terms proposed, is just and reasonable”.
On 20 May 2025, the Tribunal handed down its written judgment (here) which will now allow the millions of UK consumers who are part of the class to come forward and claim their share of the £200 million, with individuals potentially getting between £45 and £70 each. UK consumers will be able to register to receive a payment by completing a simple online form regardless whether they ever held a Mastercard card. Official information on how to claim will be posted on this website in due course.
The Documents page contains the full non-confidential versions of the documents that were filed with the Tribunal on 17 January 2025, including: (i) the joint settlement application by the Class Representative and Mastercard; (ii) the settlement agreement; and (iii) the witness statement of the Class Representative setting out why he considers the settlement to be just and reasonable; and the Class Representative’s evidence filed in response to Innsworth’s statement of intervention.
On 10 June 2025, Innsworth filed an application for permission for judicial review of the Tribunal’s judgment in respect of how the £200 million settlement sum is to be distributed and how much the litigation funder should receive as a return (the application does not relate to the settlement itself, which is not being challenged). Following the Administrative Court granting permission for the judicial review to proceed before the Divisional Court (on some but not all grounds advanced by Innsworth), the Divisional Court, on 10 June 2026, dismissed the judicial review entirely. As a result, the Tribunal’s decisions on how the settlement sum is to be distributed will stand, and the Class Representative will be entitled to claim legal costs in defending the judicial review from Innsworth.
On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal handed down its ruling on costs issues and on the Collective Settlement Approval Order. The Tribunal ruled that Innsworth is liable for costs it caused the Class Representative and Mastercard to incur as a result of its unsuccessful intervention and that it should not be reimbursed for these costs from the settlement sum. It also held that Innsworth should not be reimbursed for costs it has expended funding the collective proceedings until its application to judicially review the Tribunal’s decisions on distribution and costs-related matters are resolved.
The Collective Settlement Approval Order was also made on 31 October 2025, which gives formal approval to the terms of the settlement, directs how the Class Representative is to give notice of the settlement to the class, how the settlement sum is to be distributed to class members and other stakeholders, sets out how the Class Representative's and Innsworth's costs are to be assessed for reasonableness, and orders the costs Innsworth must pay for its unsuccessful opposition to the settlement. The Tribunal’s directions entitling class members to claim their share of the settlement sum and on how the settlement sum is to be distributed have been stayed pending resolution of Innsworth’s application for judicial review and determination by the Tribunal as to the costs that can be recovered by the Class Representative and Innsworth from the settlement sum.