Authors
Edward Spencer

Edward Spencer

Senior Counsel

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Senior Associate

Read More
Authors
Edward Spencer

Edward Spencer

Senior Counsel

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Senior Associate

Read More

9 July 2020

Disputes Quick Read – 58 of 68 Insights

Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings

  • QUICK READ

On 17 June 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the long-running Visa and Mastercard proceedings (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Europe Services LLC and others; Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd and others v Mastercard Incorporated and others [2020] UKSC 24). Here, the Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling that the setting of default multilateral interchange fees – card processing fees which have to be paid by retailers – by Visa and Mastercard was a restriction of competition. 

The Court of Appeal judgment related to three separate sets of proceedings in which the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the High Court had taken different approaches to the question of infringement of competition law. The Supreme Court judgment provides welcome clarity on this point.

The Supreme Court also clarified the so-called "broad axe issue", which related to the degree of precision required in the quantification of pass-on (the extent to which the claimant has mitigated its loss by passing on some or all of any overcharge in card processing fees to its customers). 

The Supreme Court held that the law does not require unreasonable precision, and insofar as the Court of Appeal required a greater degree of precision in the quantification of pass-on from Visa and Mastercard than from the retailers, it had erred. The burden is therefore not on the defendant to show the exact amount of loss that the claimant has mitigated in order to reduce any damages claimed from it.

Our comment

Overall, the Supreme Court judgment is a resounding success for retailers where establishing liability is concerned. However, it does not resolve the issue of quantum, and hurdles remain for retailers to quantify their damages claims, which may be the subject of future hearings (unless settlements can be negotiated). 

In this series

Cryptoassets, blockchain and distributed ledger technology

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

by Nick Maday

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

by Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers

26 February 2021

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: The latest on Unexplained Wealth Orders

7 May 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

21 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning

2 July 2020

by Tim Strong, Georgina Jones

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

by Multiple authors

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

london-from-above
Product liability & product safety

Launching a product on the GB market – Q&A guide

31 August 2021
Briefing

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more