Daimler AG v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3197 (Comm) (22 November 2019)

Daimler AG v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3197 (Comm) (22 November 2019)

The High Court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in La Gaitana, which holds that national courts lack jurisdiction to apply EU/EEA competition law to maritime services between non-EEA ports prior to 18 October 2006, absent a prior authority or Commission decision. The applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the relevant part of Daimler's claim are granted to the extent that such claims are unsustainable in law under binding precedent. No reference to the CJEU is made, as the issue is already before the CJEU via the Dutch reference in Stichting, and a further reference would be duplicative and unnecessary.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3197 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Daimler AG; Defendant/applicant: MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag; Defendant/applicant: Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA; Defendant/applicant: Wallenius Logistics AB; Defendant/applicant: Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited; Defendant/applicant: Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS; Defendant/applicant: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: "K" Line Holding (Europe) Limited; Defendant/applicant: Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha; Defendant/applicant: NYK Group Europe Limited; Defendant/applicant: Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA; Defendant/applicant: "K" Line Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (competition Damages) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment and Reference to Cjeu)
Outcome
Part of claim struck out/summarily dismissed; no reference to CJEU; remainder of claim proceeds
Legal Topics
Cartels, Jurisdiction of National Courts Under EU Law, Strike Out and Summary Judgment, Reference for Preliminary Ruling (cjeu), Temporal Scope of EU Competition Law, Direct Effect of EU Law, Implementation of EU Competition Law in Transport Sector
Competition Law European Union Law Commercial Law Cartels Jurisdiction of National Courts Under EU Law Strike Out and Summary Judgment Reference for Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) Temporal Scope of EU Competition Law +2 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daimler AG

Claimant/respondent

MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.

Defendant/applicant

Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag

Defendant/applicant

Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA

Defendant/applicant

Wallenius Logistics AB

Defendant/applicant

Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited

Defendant/applicant

Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS

Defendant/applicant

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

Defendant/applicant

"K" Line Holding (Europe) Limited

Defendant/applicant

Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant/applicant

NYK Group Europe Limited

Defendant/applicant

Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

Defendant/applicant

"K" Line Europe Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (competition Damages) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment and Reference to Cjeu)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine claims under EU/EEA competition law for maritime services between non-EEA ports prior to 18 October 2006
  2. 2 Whether claims relating to non-EEA maritime services pre-2006 should be struck out or summarily dismissed
  3. 3 Whether a reference to the CJEU should be made under Article 267 TFEU

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in La Gaitana, which holds that national courts lack jurisdiction to apply EU/EEA competition law to maritime services between non-EEA ports prior to 18 October 2006, absent a prior authority or Commission decision. The applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the relevant part of Daimler's claim are granted to the extent that such claims are unsustainable in law under binding precedent. No reference to the CJEU is made, as the issue is already before the CJEU via the Dutch reference in Stichting, and a further reference would be duplicative and unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Part of claim struck out/summarily dismissed; no reference to CJEU; remainder of claim proceeds

Orders

  • Claims relating to non-EEA maritime services prior to 18 October 2006 are struck out or summarily dismissed
  • No reference to the CJEU is made under Article 267 TFEU