Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd. & Ors

Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd. & Ors

There is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal because the losses claimed by BCL after April 1991 were caused by its own irrational decision to remain in the market, not by any actionable breach by the defendants. The chain of causation was broken by BCL's conduct, and limitation bars recovery for pre-18 April 1991 losses. Permission to appeal is refused.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Yeheskel Arkin; 1st Defendant/respondent: Borchard Lines Limited; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Camomile Lines PLC; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Furness Withy (Shipping) Ltd; 4th Defendant/respondent: Manchester Liners Ltd; Part 20 Defendants: Part 20 Defendants (various)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Trial)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty, Causation, Limitation of Actions, Mitigation of Loss, Costs Orders
Competition Law Civil Procedure Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty Causation Limitation of Actions Mitigation of Loss Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeheskel Arkin

Claimant/appellant

Borchard Lines Limited

1st Defendant/respondent

Camomile Lines PLC

2nd Defendant/respondent

Furness Withy (Shipping) Ltd

3rd Defendant/respondent

Manchester Liners Ltd

4th Defendant/respondent

Part 20 Defendants (various)

Part 20 Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding causation and limitation in a competition law damages claim
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct broke the chain of causation for losses claimed after April 1991
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal because the losses claimed by BCL after April 1991 were caused by its own irrational decision to remain in the market, not by any actionable breach by the defendants. The chain of causation was broken by BCL's conduct, and limitation bars recovery for pre-18 April 1991 losses. Permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the Defendants' costs
  • Costs to be subject to assessment if not agreed