Stellantis Auto SAS & Ors v Autoliv AB & Ors

Stellantis Auto SAS & Ors v Autoliv AB & Ors

The existence of a conflict of interest between parties is not a 'trump card' requiring separate experts. The Tribunal was entitled to order a single joint expert for the defendants, as there was no material conflict of interest relevant to the expert evidence on overcharge, and the just and proportionate management of the case justified the direction. The Tribunal made no error of law in its approach or conclusion.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Stellantis Auto SAS; Respondent/claimant: GIE PSA Tresorerie; Respondent/claimant: Stellantis NV; Respondent/claimant: Opel Automobile GmbH; Respondent/claimant: Stellantis Europe SPA; Respondent/claimant: FCA Srbija D. O. O. Kragujevac; Respondent/claimant: FCA Poland SP. Z O. O; Respondent/claimant: Maserati SPA; Respondent/claimant: Societa Europea Veicoli Leggeri (SEVEL) SPA; Respondent/claimant: Vauxhall Motors Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Stellantis España SLU; Appellant/defendant: Autoliv AB; Appellant/defendant: Autoliv, Inc; Appellant/defendant: Autoliv Japan Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Autoliv B. V. & Co. KG; Appellant/defendant: Airbags International Ltd; Appellant/defendant: ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.; Appellant/defendant: ZF Automotive Safety Germany GmbH; Appellant/defendant: ZF Automotive Germany GmbH; Appellant/defendant: TRW Systems Ltd; Appellant/defendant: ZF Automotive UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Case Management Direction Regarding Expert Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Cartel Damages, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Conflict of Interest, Joint and Several Liability
Competition Law Civil Procedure Cartel Damages Expert Evidence Case Management Conflict of Interest Joint and Several Liability

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stellantis Auto SAS

Respondent/claimant

GIE PSA Tresorerie

Respondent/claimant

Stellantis NV

Respondent/claimant

Opel Automobile GmbH

Respondent/claimant

Stellantis Europe SPA

Respondent/claimant

FCA Srbija D. O. O. Kragujevac

Respondent/claimant

FCA Poland SP. Z O. O

Respondent/claimant

Maserati SPA

Respondent/claimant

Societa Europea Veicoli Leggeri (SEVEL) SPA

Respondent/claimant

Vauxhall Motors Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Stellantis España SLU

Respondent/claimant

Autoliv AB

Appellant/defendant

Autoliv, Inc

Appellant/defendant

Autoliv Japan Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Autoliv B. V. & Co. KG

Appellant/defendant

Airbags International Ltd

Appellant/defendant

ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.

Appellant/defendant

ZF Automotive Safety Germany GmbH

Appellant/defendant

ZF Automotive Germany GmbH

Appellant/defendant

TRW Systems Ltd

Appellant/defendant

ZF Automotive UK Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Case Management Direction Regarding Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal was correct to order that the defendants' economic expert evidence be given by a single joint expert shared between defendant groups
  2. 2 Whether there was a relevant conflict of interest precluding a single joint expert
  3. 3 What principles govern the appointment of single joint experts in cartel damages cases

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of a conflict of interest between parties is not a 'trump card' requiring separate experts. The Tribunal was entitled to order a single joint expert for the defendants, as there was no material conflict of interest relevant to the expert evidence on overcharge, and the just and proportionate management of the case justified the direction. The Tribunal made no error of law in its approach or conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order for a single joint expert for the defendants stands.