A £200 million settlement can still produce a £41.5 million costs headline and an expected individual payout of approximately £45. That is the uncomfortable contrast now surrounding the long-running collective action brought against Mastercard.
Half of the settlement has been ring-fenced for class members. Based on an anticipated claim rate of around 5%, the Competition Appeal Tribunal was advised that eligible consumers could receive approximately £45 each. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the settlement was just and reasonable, given the litigation risk and the prospect of achieving a materially better outcome. In August, it was reported that approximately £41.5 million had been incurred in project costs, including fees paid to lawyers and experts.
The immediate public debate will be about whether those numbers look proportionate. For law firms, the more important question is what the case reveals about the role of costs itself.
Costs is now a strategic function, not an administrative one
The profession has traditionally treated legal costs as the technical conclusion to a matter: the bill prepared once the substantive work has been completed. That model is becoming commercially obsolete. Costs now sits at the intersection of case selection, pricing, funding, work in progress, regulatory risk, profitability and client outcomes. Firms can win the matter and still lose its economics.