Gutmann v Apple Inc & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 702 (21 June 2024)

Gutmann v Apple Inc & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 702 (21 June 2024)

Permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 (failure to strike out unsupported warranty/statutory rights claim); refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4 as CAT acted within discretion and evaluative judgment, and further evidence may emerge post-disclosure.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 702
Parties
Proposed Class Representative/respondent: Justin Gutmann; Proposed Defendant/appellant: Apple Inc.; Proposed Defendant/appellant: Apple Distribution International Limited; Proposed Defendant/appellant: Apple Retail UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Permission to Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 (deferred for 21 days for possible amendment); refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Collective Proceedings, Case Management, Class Representative Suitability, Transparency in Commercial Practices
Competition Law Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominant Position Collective Proceedings Case Management Class Representative Suitability Transparency in Commercial Practices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justin Gutmann

Proposed Class Representative/respondent

Apple Inc.

Proposed Defendant/appellant

Apple Distribution International Limited

Proposed Defendant/appellant

Apple Retail UK Limited

Proposed Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Permission to Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CAT erred in not striking out allegations of substandard iPhones breaching warranty/statutory rights
  2. 2 Whether CAT erred in permitting alternative case based on lack of transparency and commercial pressure
  3. 3 Whether CAT erred in not striking out claim post-28 December 2017 announcement

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 (failure to strike out unsupported warranty/statutory rights claim); refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4 as CAT acted within discretion and evaluative judgment, and further evidence may emerge post-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 (deferred for 21 days for possible amendment); refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4.

Orders

  • PCR given 21 days to apply to amend draft Re-Amended Claim Form; Apple given 7 days to respond.
  • If satisfactory amendment, permission to appeal refused; if not, permission to appeal granted on Ground 1.