Air Canada & Ors v Emerald Supplies Limited & Ors

Air Canada & Ors v Emerald Supplies Limited & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in law by ordering disclosure of Pergan-protected materials from the Commission Decision to claimants, even within a confidentiality ring, as this violated the absolute protection of the presumption of innocence and confidentiality under EU law. The court further held that the economic tort claims (unlawful means, conspiracy) should be struck out as a matter of law because the requisite intention to injure the claimants could not be established on the pleaded facts, and that the judge's refusal to strike out was a misdirection. The indemnity costs order against BA was also set aside as a consequence.

Parties
Third, Fourth Parties, Non Parties / Appellants: Air Canada, Air France-KLM, Cargolux Airlines International SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, KLM NV, Martinair Holland NV, SAS AB, SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Singapore Airlines Limited, Société Air France, Korean Air Lines Co. Limited, Thai Airways International Public Company Limited, Polar Air Cargo LLC, Air New Zealand Limited, All Nippon Airways Co Limited, Emirates, Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited, Malaysia Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines; Defendant / Appellant: British Airways PLC; Claimants / Respondents: Emerald Supplies Limited & 564 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (chancery Division) Orders
Outcome
Appeals allowed (Pergan appeals and strikeout appeals); High Court orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Presumption of Innocence, Confidentiality in Competition Proceedings, Economic Torts, Strike Out Applications, Contribution Claims, Case Management, Article 101 TFEU, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978
Competition Law Civil Procedure European Union Law Disclosure of Evidence Presumption of Innocence Confidentiality in Competition Proceedings Economic Torts Strike Out Applications +4 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Air Canada, Air France-KLM, Cargolux Airlines International SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, KLM NV, Martinair Holland NV, SAS AB, SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Singapore Airlines Limited, Société Air France, Korean Air Lines Co. Limited, Thai Airways International Public Company Limited, Polar Air Cargo LLC, Air New Zealand Limited, All Nippon Airways Co Limited, Emirates, Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited, Malaysia Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines

Third, Fourth Parties, Non Parties / Appellants

British Airways PLC

Defendant / Appellant

Emerald Supplies Limited & 564 Others

Claimants / Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (chancery Division) Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to order disclosure of unredacted European Commission Decision (including 'Pergan' materials) to claimants within a confidentiality ring
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to refuse to strike out claims in economic torts (unlawful means, conspiracy) against British Airways
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct to award indemnity costs against BA for its strike out application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in law by ordering disclosure of Pergan-protected materials from the Commission Decision to claimants, even within a confidentiality ring, as this violated the absolute protection of the presumption of innocence and confidentiality under EU law. The court further held that the economic tort claims (unlawful means, conspiracy) should be struck out as a matter of law because the requisite intention to injure the claimants could not be established on the pleaded facts, and that the judge's refusal to strike out was a misdirection. The indemnity costs order against BA was also set aside as a consequence.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed (Pergan appeals and strikeout appeals); High Court orders set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court's order requiring disclosure of Pergan-protected materials to claimants.
  • Set aside the High Court's refusal to strike out the economic tort claims; those claims are struck out.