EUPillar Deutsche Bahn AG & Others v Morgan Advanced Materials plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1484

Summary

The case was concerned with EU competition law claims for damages. The court proceedings were preceded by a decision of the European Commission finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. (Case C.38.359 – Electrical and Mechanical Carbon and Graphite Products [2004] OJ L125/45). The English court proceedings were initiated in December 2010. Deutsche Bahn (and 29 other claimants) brought damage claims against Morgan (and 5 other defendants). On the claimant’s side, there were originally 12 claimants established in Germany, six claimants from England, five claimants from the Netherlands, two claimants from Portugal, two claimants from Italy, two from Sweden, one from Spain, and one from Norway; on the defendant’s side there were three defendants from Germany, one from the UK, one from Austria and one from France. The claimants were seeking to establish jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of Brussels I. The defendants challenged the English courts’ jurisdiction, making an application to strike out the claim against the anchor defendant, Morgan, which happened to be the only defendant that was domiciled in England. The defendants were successful because the claim against the only UK defendant, Morgan, was struck out as being brought after the limitation period had elapsed. See the subsequent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Deutsche Bahn [2014] UKSC 24. In the circumstances, the UK claimants had to base their damage claims on Article 5(3) of Brussels I rather than Article 6(1). The jurisdiction was established in England under Article 5(3). However, the English court jurisdiction was limited to the local harm only. It should be noted that: “15 The stays imposed by the Tribunal by way of the orders of 26 July 2011 and 13 September 2012 were “case-management” stays (to use the terminology of Professor Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation , 1st ed (2010), at [13.05] ff ). The stays were imposed because a decision by the Tribunal – namely to strike out the proceedings as against the “anchor” defendant, Morgan, a company incorporated in England, the presence of which would have secured jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation – had significant case-management implications, and was being reviewed by higher courts. In short, purely domestic, procedural considerations underlay the decision to stay the proceedings. […] 93 Weighing matters in the balance, we consider that it is plainly better for the stay to be partially lifted, in the manner contended for by the UK Claimants. Not only does this accord with the UK Claimants' interest in having, and indeed right to have, their claims expeditiously determined, but also the work involved in dealing with the limited claims of the UK Claimants will likely enable the rest of the claims – should they proceed in this jurisdiction – to proceed more quickly, than if the stay were not to be lifted. In particular, it seems likely that a number of interlocutory skirmishes relating to disclosure, which Mr Hoskins averted to, could be addressed in the period before the Supreme Court gives judgment in relation to Morgan's position.” [15-93] The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ application, seeking a permission to appeal.