Summary
The case was concerned with EU competition law claims for damages.
The claimant, Nokia, was suing 25 defendants from several distinct groups of companies, AU Optronics, Samsung, Samsung SDI, Sharp Laboratories, Toshiba, Hitachi. Nokia alleged that the defendants have been involved in anti-competitive practices which contravene Article 101 TFEU.
The “anchor defendants” were D12, a company from the Samsung group of companies, and D22, a company from the Hitachi group of companies. Most of the defendants were domiciled outside England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Samsung and Hitachi defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts, making applications to strike out the claims against the anchor defendants. The strike out applications were dismissed. Mr Justice Sales stated:
“82 In my view, it is well arguable that as a matter of EU law a civil law damages claim can be maintained by a person who has suffered loss as a result of paying inflated prices by reason of cartel arrangements in breach of Article 101 against a member of a participating undertaking which implemented the arrangements, albeit without knowledge of the cartel – at least where there is some significant element of influence or control by a member of the undertaking which does have knowledge of the cartel over the activities of the implementing member of the undertaking (control within the relevant undertakings is pleaded in this case).
[…]
84 I therefore conclude that there is no proper basis on which I should strike out any part of the P/C or refuse to permit the amendments in the Amended P/C on the grounds that they disclose no reasonably arguable claim in relation to the alternative implementation case to be made against the defendants. It may be that at some point in the proceedings a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union may be required, but that is by no means obvious at this stage and is not an issue which I have to decide.” [82 and 84]