OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor

OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor

Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 requires the court to consider what the actual claimant could have discovered with reasonable diligence, not to assume the claimant was still trading if it was not. The test is objective but must be applied to the claimant's real circumstances. Therefore, the fact that OT Computers Limited was in administration and not trading when facts about the cartel emerged is relevant, and the limitation period remained suspended until a reasonably diligent insolvency practitioner could have discovered the concealed facts.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation); Appellant/defendant: Infineon Technologies AG; Appellant/defendant: Micron Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deliberate Concealment, Reasonable Diligence, Limitation Periods, Follow on Competition Claims, Objective Standard in Limitation Law
Limitation of Actions Competition Law Civil Procedure Deliberate Concealment Reasonable Diligence Limitation Periods Follow on Competition Claims Objective Standard in Limitation Law

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

Parties

OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation)

Respondent/claimant

Infineon Technologies AG

Appellant/defendant

Micron Europe Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies when a claimant company is in administration or liquidation at the time facts emerge that would otherwise trigger the limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether the test for reasonable diligence under section 32(1) requires treating a claimant as if it were still trading when it is not.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 requires the court to consider what the actual claimant could have discovered with reasonable diligence, not to assume the claimant was still trading if it was not. The test is objective but must be applied to the claimant's real circumstances. Therefore, the fact that OT Computers Limited was in administration and not trading when facts about the cartel emerged is relevant, and the limitation period remained suspended until a reasonably diligent insolvency practitioner could have discovered the concealed facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • The Appellants shall pay the Respondent’s costs of these appeals, save for the costs of and occasioned by the Respondent’s Notice, such costs to be determined by detailed assessment unless agreed.