Summary
The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgment in a £14 billion collective action brought against MasterCard in relation to anticompetitive interchange fees, following an infringement decision by the European Commission against MasterCard. In this Insight, we discuss the key findings in the judgment, matters which remain unresolved, and the likely impact of the judgment on the future of the collective actions regime.
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its hotly anticipated judgment in
Merricks v MasterCard, a collective action believed to be the largest class action ever filed in any jurisdiction, which seeks £14 billion in damages on behalf of a class of 46.2 million consumers in relation to anticompetitive interchange fees.
Judgment in UK COVID Business Interruption Appeal Will Be Handed Down in January
LONDON – There will be no judgment in an appeal over business interruption insurance this year, Britain’s markets watchdog said on Tuesday, dashing hopes of an early outcome in a case that could affect billions of pounds in claims.
Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority has been told by the UK’s Supreme Court that no judgment will be handed down before January 2021, the regulator said on its web page dedicated to the case.
Related:
The appeal by the FCA and six insurers in a test case over business interruption payments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic is being closely watched at home and abroad.
BRAVO for the Welsh Labour government. Yes, you heard me right. After the Parliamentary Labour Party’s shameful capitulation on amendments tackling the Internal Market Bill’s devolved power grab, it was surprising to see their comrades in Cardiff come out of the traps so quickly with a legal challenge to the bill. Surprising but exciting – and what happens with the Welsh Government’s legal challenge could be very significant for Scotland. It’s pretty desperate that we have had to be dependent on the House of Lords to ameliorate the bill. The sum total of all their efforts is very thin gruel and does not go anywhere even halfway near to addressing the Scottish Government’s concerns.
Jennifer McCarron, Roza Salih, and Evelina Siwak from Drumchapel. DESPITE the name, The Herald Scottish Politician of the Year Awards are not solely about politicians. Recognising the ways that members of the public, often those thrust into extraordinary or tragic circumstances, can shake up the system is also an integral part of the event. For the passion, determination, grief and anger felt outside Parliament have always been key drivers of change within it, as parties are compelled to respond to the public mood. With the awards on pause in 2020 because of Covid, this week The Herald has been running the judges’ pick of the overall winners from the past 21 years of devolution.
Friday, December 18, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom (“UK Supreme Court”) in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb,
1 (“Enka v. Chubb”) has passed a landmark ruling, where they have set out the principles to be followed for determination of the law governing the arbitration agreement. This is the first time the UK Supreme Court has clarified the position of law after a careful consideration of the earlier cases, including the famous decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Sulamerica v. Enesa Engenharia (“Sulamerica”)
2.
The UK Supreme Court has held that where the arbitration clause does not specifically mention the law governing the arbitration agreement, but however mentions the law of the main contract, then the same would normally govern the law governing the arbitration agreement. Where there is no express choice of law governing the main contract, by default, the arbitration agreement would be governed b