On 17 July 2020, the High Court handed down a ruling on disclosure issues arising in the standalone competition damages case claim brought by Phones 4U Ltd’s (P4U) administrators against mobile network operators (MNOs) EE, Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Vodafone, and O2.
Volvo Car AB and Volvo Personvagnar AB V MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others
On 13 July 2020, the CAT published an order consenting to the withdrawal by Volvo Car AB and Volvo Personvagnar
Dortmund Regional Court on Group Liability for Cartels Damages
On July 8, 2020, the Dortmund Regional Court for the first time considered a group liability of all companies forming an economic unit for cartel damages.[1] The court concluded—in line with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) recent case law—that the broader notion of an “undertaking” (in the sense of the economic unit) under EU law also applies in damages actions under national law.
Churchill Gowns Ltd and Student Gowns Ltd v Ede & Ravenscroft Ltd and Ors
On 26 June 2020, the CAT published a summary of a claim brought by Churchill Gowns and Student Gowns seeking
Royal Mail Group Ltd v DAF Trucks Ltd & Ors; BT Group plc & Ors v DAF Trucks Ltd & Ors; Dawsongroup plc & Ors v DAF Trucks N.V. & Ors (“Trucks”)
On 23 June 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment on the costs of a preliminary issues hearing in the
Supreme Court Rejects Mastercard and Visa Appeal on Liability but Allows “Pass On” Appeal
On 17 June 2020, the Supreme Court handed down a much anticipated judgment concerning the default multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) set by Mastercard and Visa (together, the Appellants).[1]
The Paris Court of Appeals Orders Orange To Pay Over €180 Million in Follow-on Antitrust Damage Claim
On June 17, 2020, the Paris Court of Appeals (“the Court”) ordered Orange and its subsidiary Orange Caraïbe to pay (jointly and severally) €181.5 million in antitrust damages and €68 million in interest to rival Digicel (formerly Bouygues Telecom Caraïbe) as compensation for the Orange group’s anti-competitive behavior across several markets in the French West Indies.[1] The Court’s decision overturns a 2017 first instance ruling by the Paris Commercial Court.[2]
Dsg Retail Limited and Dixons Retail Group Limited v Mastercard
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.
FCJ Provides Useful Guidance on Umbrella Damages and the Passing on Defense in Cartels Follow-on Damages Cases
On May 19, 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) overturned a judgment of the Munich Court of Appeal in one of the numerous cartel follow-on damages actions brought against members of the so-called Rail Cartel (“Schienenkartell”), this time by the Munich Transportation Authority.[1] The FCJ once more confirmed its decisional practice in the case of quota and customer protection cartels, according to which there can be no prima facie evidence that damages were incurred and/or whether individual purchase orders were affected by the cartel.[2] The decision had to be reversed, for the Munich Court of Appeal had based its decision on such prima facie evidence. Of particular interest is the FCJ’s reasoning on two other issues:
Amit Patel v CMA
On 28 May 2020, the CAT published the summary of an appeal by Amit Patel, a former director of Auden Mckenzie (Pharma Divisions) Limited and Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited (together, Auden Mckenzie), against the CMA’s decision of 4 March 2020.