Court of Appeal Delivers Verdict on Interchange Fee Dispute

Court of Appeal Delivers Verdict on Interchange Fee Dispute

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the ongoing litigation concerning Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs), a case that has significant implications for competition law and the applicability of EU decisions post-Brexit. The appeal arose from a decision made by the Competition Appeal Tribunal regarding the limitation period for claims against Visa and Mastercard.

The central issue in the appeal was whether decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered after the UK's exit from the EU should influence English law. Specifically, the court examined the effect of such decisions on claims involving alleged infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The claimants, representing a large group of merchants, argued that the EU law principle of effectiveness necessitated that the limitation period for claims should only commence once the infringement had ceased. This principle, known as the 'Cessation Requirement', was a focal point of the case.

The Court of Appeal, led by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, along with Sir Julian Flaux and Lady Justice Falk, analysed the Tribunal's interpretation of the CJEU's decision in Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v. RM, which had implications for the Cessation Requirement. The Tribunal had previously concluded that the CJEU had not established a binding rule that limitation periods should only start after an infringement ceases.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Withdrawal Act did not require English courts to follow post-Brexit CJEU decisions. The court noted that the principle of effectiveness was not violated by the current English limitation rules, as previously determined in the Arcadia case.

The court also considered the recent CJEU decision in Heureka Group a.s. v. Google LLC, which the claimants argued confirmed the Cessation Requirement as a binding rule of EU law. However, the Court of Appeal found that this did not alter the legal landscape for pre-Brexit claims in the UK.

Ultimately, the court decided that the claimants' arguments did not warrant a departure from established English law. The decision reaffirms the position that post-Brexit, UK courts are not bound by new CJEU rulings, although they may consider them.

Learn More

For more insights into competition law and the implications of Brexit, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Copyright & permissions