Introduction

The case Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants v Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants ([2024] EWCA Civ 1559) represents a significant development in the landscape of competition law within the United Kingdom post-Brexit. Heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on December 19, 2024, this appeal centers on the interpretation and applicability of post-completion day decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the context of competition law infringements.

The core issue involves whether the Cessation Requirement—a principle derived from EU law stipulating that limitation periods for competition law claims commence only after the infringement has ceased—should be applied to claims arising under UK law after the completion day (December 31, 2020). The claimants, among approximately 2,300 merchants, allege that Visa and Mastercard have continuously infringed Article 101 TFEU through multilateral interchange fees (MIFs).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had previously determined that post-completion day CJEU decisions, specifically the Volvo (2022) and Heureka (2024) cases, do not bind UK courts under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The central findings of the judgment are as follows:

• The Tribunal correctly concluded that the CJEU's rulings in Volvo and Heureka do not impose a binding Cessation Requirement on UK law.
• The Withdrawal Act 2018, particularly sections 4(1) and 6(2), shields UK courts from adhering to post-completion day CJEU decisions.
• The UK Supreme Court's decision in Lipton further reinforces the principle that new CJEU decisions post-Brexit do not have binding authority over UK courts.
• The Tribunal's reliance on the pre-Brexit Arcadia decision remains valid, as it aligns with retained EU law as interpreted prior to Brexit.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Cessation Requirement as interpreted in Volvo and Heureka does not alter the existing UK limitation regime under the Limitation Act 1980.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases and statutory provisions:

• Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v. RM (2022) (Case C-267/20): Introduced the Cessation Requirement, asserting that limitation periods for competition law claims under EU law do not commence until the infringement ceases.
• Heureka Group a.s. v. Google LLC (2024) (Case C-605/21): Reinforced the Cessation Requirement as an integral part of the EU law principle of effectiveness.
• Arcadia Group Brands Ltd v. Visa Inc. (2015) ([2015] EWCA Civ 883): A pre-Brexit decision affirming that EU law did not impose a Cessation Requirement on UK limitation rules.
• Lipton v. BA Cityflyer Ltd (2024) ([2024] UKSC 24): Clarified the application of the Withdrawal Act 2018, establishing that post-Brexit CJEU decisions are not binding on UK courts.
• Additional references include Courage Ltd v. Crehan, Manfredi v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, and Cogeco Communications Inc v. Sport TV Portugal SA, highlighting the evolution of the Cessation Requirement concept.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting the Withdrawal Act 2018 and its implications for the applicability of CJEU decisions post-December 31, 2020. Key points include:

• Withdrawal Act 2018: Sections 4(1) and 6(2) preserve pre-Brexit EU law but explicitly exclude post-completion day CJEU decisions from being binding.
• Complete Code Analysis vs. Interpretation Act Analysis: The court adhered to the "Complete Code Analysis" as endorsed in Lipton, which treats retained EU law as a complete code and does not incorporate new CJEU rulings beyond the withdrawal act’s provisions.
• Absence of a Precedent Cessation Requirement: Prior to Volvo and Heureka, EU law did not explicitly mandate the Cessation Requirement, making the new judgments non-binding on UK law.
• Impact of the Damages Directive: Article 10(2) of the Damages Directive, introduced post-Brexit, does not retrospectively affect claims initiated before its enactment, further insulating UK law from new CJEU interpretations.
• Doctrine of Precedent: The court maintained adherence to the pre-Brexit Arcadia decision, asserting that it remains binding unless overturned by a higher court.

Impact

The judgment has profound implications for future competition law claims in the UK:

• Judicial Independence Post-Brexit: Reinforces the autonomy of UK courts in interpreting and applying competition law without being bound by subsequent CJEU decisions.
• Limitation Periods: Confirms that the Cessation Requirement, as defined post-Brexit, does not alter existing UK limitation frameworks, ensuring legal certainty for claimants and defendants alike.
• Future Legislation: Emphasizes the importance of domestic legislative measures in shaping competition law, particularly in light of retained EU laws and new statutory provisions like the Damages Directive.
• Legal Predictability: Provides clarity on the non-applicability of future CJEU interpretations to UK law, allowing businesses and legal practitioners to operate with greater predictability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cessation Requirement

The Cessation Requirement is a legal principle stating that the time limit for bringing a lawsuit (limitation period) begins only after the unlawful activity or infringement has stopped. In the context of competition law, it means that merchants can only initiate claims against companies like Visa and Mastercard once those entities have ceased their anti-competitive practices.

Withdrawal Act 2018

The Withdrawal Act 2018 facilitates the UK's exit from the European Union (Brexit). It ensures that existing EU law continues to apply in the UK post-Brexit ("retained EU law") but also stipulates that new EU decisions and laws do not have automatic authority in UK courts.

Complete Code Analysis vs. Interpretation Act Analysis

• Complete Code Analysis: Treats retained EU law as a complete and standalone body, not requiring any integration with new laws or interpretations made by EU courts after Brexit.
• Interpretation Act Analysis: Suggests that retained EU law should be interpreted in light of new EU developments, potentially allowing some influence from post-Brexit CJEU decisions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants v Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants underscores the UK's judicial sovereignty following Brexit, particularly in the realm of competition law. By affirming that post-completion day CJEU decisions like Volvo and Heureka do not bind UK courts, the judgment reinforces the principle that UK law operates independently of subsequent EU jurisprudence.

This case sets a clear precedent, ensuring that limitation periods and legal principles within the UK competition law framework remain consistent and unaffected by external EU court rulings post-Brexit. As a result, businesses and legal entities can engage with greater certainty, knowing that their legal obligations and rights are defined by domestic law without unexpected shifts influenced by future EU decisions.