The claim by Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited (the O’Higgins PCR) is a collective action against banks who participated in the FX cartels (the O’Higgins FX Claim). On 11 December 2020, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment on collective actions. This was the judgment in Walter Merricks CBE v Mastercard (Merricks).
In this article we summarise the Merricks judgment and its implications for the O’Higgins Claim. In short, the Merricks judgment has provided welcome guidance on the test that prospective collective actions such as the O’Higgins Claim have to meet in order to be certified and so be permitted to proceed against the defendants. The O’Higgins PCR is confident that its claim meets the standard for certification.
By way of background, collective actions were introduced by the Consumer Rights Act (the CRA) which came into force on 1 October 2015. Amongst other things, the CRA allows collective actions to be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT). For a proposed collective action to proceed, the CAT must make a collective proceedings order (CPO) which authorises the proposed class representative as suitable to represent the class and which certifies the claims of the proposed class members as eligible to be included in collective proceedings. This step is referred to as ‘certification’.
Under Rule 79(1) of the CAT Rules 2015, such a certification order will be made if the CAT is satisfied that the claims covered by the proposed collective action are: (a) brought on behalf of an identifiable class of persons; (b) raise common issues; and (c) are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings.
Certification therefore takes place with the granting of a CPO and is the formal establishment of a class of victims of the anticompetitive conduct by the CAT. If the CPO application is successful, and certification takes place, then the claim progresses to a trial post-certification to determine whether the class suffered harm and is entitled to damages. If the class is entitled to damages, post-award the class representative will then distribute the damages to individual class members in what is called the ‘distribution phase’.
To date, eleven collective actions have been filed under the CRA regime. However, only Merricks has advanced sufficiently far to provide guidance on the test for certification.
By way of background on Merricks, on 6 September 2016, Mr Merricks filed an application for a CPO under the CRA alleging that UK consumers paid, between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008, higher prices as a result of Mastercard’s imposition of unlawful ‘interchange fees’. Retailers pay interchange fees whenever they accept a credit or debit card transaction, and Mr Merricks argues that retailers passed these fees onto all consumers (whether they paid by card or not) in the form of higher prices.
In July 2017 Mr Merricks’ application for a CPO failed at the first hurdle when it was dismissed by the CAT. The CAT refused certification on two grounds: (i) that the claims were not suitable for an aggregate award of damages; and (ii) that Mr Merricks’ proposal for distribution of damages in the distribution phase did not accord with traditional English legal principles that damages must be compensatory.
However, the CAT’s first instance decision was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in April 2019 found in favour of Mr Merricks. The Court of Appeal found that the CAT’s decision was impaired by five errors of law in relation to: (i) the consideration of the CAT of ‘common issues’; (ii) the likely availability of data; (iii) the CAT having held in essence a ‘mini-trial’ at the certification hearing; (iv) the tying of the distribution proposal to the compensatory principle; and (v) assessing the proposal for distribution at the certification phase.
Mastercard then appealed that decision to the UK Supreme Court. The hearing in the appeal was held on 13 and 14 May 2020 and focussed on two key questions:
The delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court was delayed after the untimely death of one of the five Supreme Court members who heard the appeal, Lord Kerr. However, prior to his death, Lord Kerr had agreed with two of the other four judges in favour of Mr Merricks, while two other judges dissented (i.e. disagreed with the other judges). Judgment was delivered on 11 December 2020, with (in effect) a 3:2 judgment in favour of Mr Merricks.
The Supreme Court judgment in Merricks is ‘claimant-friendly’ in that it sets a lower standard for certification that had been identified by the CAT. It is worth noting the following about the Merricks judgment:
The dissenting judges argued that the CAT should be entitled to require the class representative to demonstrate that there is a method which is capable of establishing loss in a reasonable and just way, and at proportionate cost, on a class-wide basis.
The certification hearing in the O’Higgins FX Claim is scheduled for 12 July 2021 and will be applying the standard on certification as set by the Supreme Court in Merricks.
Mr O’Higgins and his team have always taken the view that the O’Higgins FX Claim would have been suitable to be certified as a collective action even on the higher threshold for certification originally applied by the CAT in Merricks. This confidence has been increased by the considerably lower threshold set by the Supreme Court in its Merricks judgment. Even the standard set by the dissenting judges would be comfortably exceeded by the O’Higgins FX Claim.
Updates on the progress of the O’Higgins FX Claim to and post-certification will continue to appear on this claim website and will be emailed to everyone who registers on this claim website here. Any questions from Proposed Class members can be emailed to email@example.com.
Author: Belinda Hollway + James Hain-Cole
Scott+Scott UK LLP