London, 8 November 2025
In a landmark development for collective redress and litigation funding in the UK, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has refused permission for Visa Inc. and Mastercard Incorporated (alongside other defendants including Apple Inc.) to appeal the enforceability of litigation funding arrangements in large-scale claims.
The decision puts down a major marker in the legal regime governing third-party litigation funding in the context of competition law collective proceedings: defendants can no longer use funding-agreement challenges as an indefinite procedural tactic, while class-action funders and claim-groups now have increased certainty about their ability to proceed.
Background
The issue arose in opt-out collective proceedings brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) by merchants and other claimants in litigation involving interchange fees charged by Visa and Mastercard. These proceedings rely on litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that pay funders a return based on the outcome of the litigation.
Following the earlier decision in R (PACCAR Inc & others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal (2023)—which held that, in certain circumstances, LFAs that provide a percentage of damages fall within the statutory definition of a “damages-based agreement” (DBA) and are therefore subject to regulatory restrictions—the validity of multiple-based funding structures was thrown into doubt.
In July 2025 the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from the defendants challenging the revised funding arrangements, holding that the LFAs in the collective claims (including those against Visa and Mastercard) were enforceable and did not amount to DBAs.
According to the Supreme Court’s public register, the Visa v Commercial and Interregional and Mastercard appeals (alongside linked appeals) were registered for permission to appeal under case number UKSC 2025/0158. (Supreme Court)
The Court’s terse conclusion: the applications “do not raise an arguable point of law”. That means it declined to grant leave to appeal, thereby allowing the Court of Appeal’s judgment to stand.
Claimants in the interchange-fee litigation against Visa and Mastercard — and indeed in other large-scale competition actions — can now proceed on a firmer footing. From the defendants’ side, this decision narrows one strategic defence line.
Nonetheless, questions remain around the broader regulatory regime for litigation funding. The Civil Justice Council recommended reversing PACCAR through legislation (which would clarify once and for all how LFAs should be treated). The Government has yet to implement such legislative change.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant permission to appeal marks a victory for funded collective proceedings in this domain. It signals that litigation funding is here to stay as a viable mechanism for large-scale competition law redress. The regime has matured — and claimants will be breathing easier knowing one major hurdle has been cleared.
Source:
