On 22 May 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in an appeal by Mastercard against the CAT’s ruling on a preliminary issue of limitation. Dixons’ claim was issued as a follow-on claim relying on the European Commission’s 2007 Mastercard interchange fee decision, which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU from 22 May 1992 to 21 June 2008. On 14 February 2019, the CAT rejected Mastercard’s attempts to use changes to the rules governing limitation periods for damages claims in the CAT to exclude historic losses. Mastercard argued that rule 31(4) of the CAT Rules 2003, which applies pursuant to rule 119 of the 2015 CAT rules, excludes any claim arising before 20 June 1997 because those claims would have been time-barred on 20 June 2003 when the Enterprise Act 2002 came into force. The CAT found that none of the claims brought against Mastercard, including those that arose before 20 June 1997, were time barred. The Court of Appeal held that the CAT had erred in its interpretation of rule 31(4) by interpreting it in light of the 2015 CAT rules, and that the pre-20 June 1997 claims were prima facie time barred. The Court stated that the 2015 legislation was restoring the six-year limitation period that applied under the Limitation Act 1980; it did not revive claims that had been already been statute-barred. The Court of Appeal also held, however, that the CAT had made errors when considering whether the claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts concerning the infringement before June 1997, and therefore whether the limitation period should be extended for deliberate concealment. In view of these findings, the Court of Appeal held that Mastercard’s application for summary judgment ought to have been dismissed in its entirety; the question of whether pre-June 1997 claims are time barred will be determined at trial.