Media-Saturn Holding GmbH & Ors v Toshiba Information Systems (UK) Ltd & Ors
The claims against TIS and PE under EU competition law are sufficiently arguable and not fit for summary disposal, given the factual matrix, the Decisive Influence and Provimi Grounds, and the need for trial to resolve factual disputes. The economic tort claims (unlawful means conspiracy and unlawful interference) against TIS, PE, PME, and PI are not arguable as there is no realistic prospect of establishing the requisite intention to injure. The claims against PME and PI are closely connected to those against the anchor defendants, and jurisdiction under Article 8(1) RBR is established; there is no firm evidence that the claims are brought solely to remove them from their domicile.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Media-Saturn Holding GmbH & Others; Defendant/applicant: Toshiba Information Systems (U.K.) Limited; Defendant/applicant: Toshiba Electronics Europe GMBH; Defendant/applicant: Toshiba Europe GMBH; Defendant/applicant: Panasonic Europe B.V.; Defendant/applicant: Panasonic Marketing Europe GMBH; Defendant/applicant: Panasonic Industry Europe GMBH
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 May 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (competition/commercial) / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
- Outcome
- Strike out and summary judgment applications by TIS and PE on EU law claims dismissed; economic tort claims against TIS, PE, PME, and PI struck out; jurisdiction over PME and PI upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Article 101 TFEU, Cartel Damages, Economic Torts, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Decisive Influence Doctrine, Provimi Ground, Strike Out Principles, Summary Judgment Principles
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Media-Saturn Holding GmbH & Others
Claimant/respondent
Toshiba Information Systems (U.K.) Limited
Defendant/applicant
Toshiba Electronics Europe GMBH
Defendant/applicant
Toshiba Europe GMBH
Defendant/applicant
Panasonic Europe B.V.
Defendant/applicant
Panasonic Marketing Europe GMBH
Defendant/applicant
Panasonic Industry Europe GMBH
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil (competition/commercial) / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claims against TIS and PE disclose reasonable grounds or have real prospect of success under EU competition law and economic torts
- 2 Whether claims against PME and PI are properly before the English court under Article 8(1) RBR
- 3 Whether the Provimi Ground and Decisive Influence Doctrine apply to attribute liability to subsidiaries/parents not direct addressees of the cartel decision
Ratio Decidendi
The claims against TIS and PE under EU competition law are sufficiently arguable and not fit for summary disposal, given the factual matrix, the Decisive Influence and Provimi Grounds, and the need for trial to resolve factual disputes. The economic tort claims (unlawful means conspiracy and unlawful interference) against TIS, PE, PME, and PI are not arguable as there is no realistic prospect of establishing the requisite intention to injure. The claims against PME and PI are closely connected to those against the anchor defendants, and jurisdiction under Article 8(1) RBR is established; there is no firm evidence that the claims are brought solely to remove them from their domicile.
Court Disposition
Strike out and summary judgment applications by TIS and PE on EU law claims dismissed; economic tort claims against TIS, PE, PME, and PI struck out; jurisdiction over PME and PI upheld.
Orders
- EU law claims against TIS and PE to proceed to trial
- Economic tort claims against TIS, PE, PME, and PI struck out
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment