Walter Merricks brought the £14billion lawsuit against the payment company in what is a historic case. Mr Merricks claims the company owes the money to their 46 million members after apparently overcharging UK customers in transaction fees. The former financial ombudsman calculated the fee during a 16-year period which applies to anyone who can prove that they were in the UK during that period.
In a statement following the historic ruling, Mr Merricks said: “I am very pleased with today’s decision.
“It is nearly 12 years since Mastercard was clearly told that they had broken the law by imposing excessive card transaction charges, damaging consumers over a prolonged period.
“As a result we all had to pay higher prices in the shops than we should have done — while Mastercard have pocketed the profits.
“It’s now time for Mastercard to admit the damage they did, to apologise to the British public, and to agree to pay the compensation they owe.”
READ MORE: Card chaos as Visa system crashes
The origins of this case started in 2007 when the European Commission found Mastercard had breached competition law in relation to how it sets fees between banks and transactions.
In 2017 Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected Mr Merrick’s claim for damages and said it would not allow the case to go to trial.
Presently, the court of appeal has ordered the tribunal to reconsider its original ruling in what is the biggest class action in British legal history.
If Mr Merricks’ claim wins out then everyone entitled to a payout will be paid the £300 amount unless they state otherwise.
READ MORE: Visa down: Customer frustration as ‘service disruption’ stop payments
In response to the ruling, Mastercard has announced that it is willing to fight against the lawsuit and is willing to go to the Supreme Court.
A spokeswoman for the company said in response: “This decision is not a final ruling and the proposed claim is not approved to move forward.
“Rather the court has simply said a rehearing on certain issues should happen.
“Mastercard continues to disagree fundamentally with the basis of the claim and we believe UK consumers receive real value from the security, convenience and consumer protection of our payment services.”