Case No: 1266/7/7/16
Neutral citation Number:  CAT 21
IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
London WC1A 2EB
28 September 2017
(1) MASTERCARD INCORPORATED
(2) MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
(3) MASTERCARD EUROPE S.P.R.L
"Subject to the provisions of this Act and Tribunal rules, proceedings may be brought before the Tribunal combining two or more claims to which section 47A applies ("collective proceedings")."
"(1A) An appeal lies to the appropriate court on a point of law arising from a decision of the Tribunal in proceedings under section 47A or in collective proceedings
(a) as to the award of damages or other sum (other than a decision on costs or expenses), or
(b) as to the grant of an injunction.
(1B) An appeal lies to the appropriate court from a decision of the Tribunal in proceedings under section 47A or in collective proceedings as to the amount of an award of damages or other sum (other than the amount of costs or expenses).
(1C) An appeal under subsection (1A) arising from a decision in respect of a stand-alone claim may include consideration of a point of law arising from a finding of the Tribunal as to an infringement of a prohibition listed in section 47A(2)."
"(1) An appeal lies to the appropriate court
(b) from a decision of the Tribunal as to the award of damages or other sum in respect of a claim made in proceedings under section 47A or included in proceedings under section 47B (other than a decision on costs or expenses) or as to the amount of any such damages or other sum; "
" it is difficult to believe that Parliament intended an unsuccessful claimant to be able to appeal against the dismissal of his claim after a full hearing but not to do so against its dismissal under rule 40. Once one accepts that the wording of section 49(1) is wide enough to cover a rule 40 determination against the viability of the claim it is hard to identify any linguistic or policy barrier to the inclusion of a decision to the opposite effect. In my view, the language of the subsection covers both."
" Mr Harris [leading counsel for the Applicant] very properly accepted that if it appeared at the outset that there is no methodology which can produce a fair distribution of an aggregate award of damages and therefore proper compensation, then that is a matter which the Tribunal can take into account in deciding whether to grant a CPO."
The Hon. Mr Justice Roth
Charles Dhanowa O.B.E., Q.C. (Hon)
Date: 28 September 2017