DSG Retail Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors

DSG Retail Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors

The Tribunal erred in law in its construction of rule 31(4) of the 2003 Rules; claims for pre-20 June 1997 transactions are prima facie time-barred. The Tribunal also erred in its approach to section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 by treating reasonable diligence as a hypothetical test and assuming claimants were on notice to investigate. The question of whether claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts requires a trial with disclosure and evidence. The Tribunal further erred in treating claims for domestic MIFs as a distinct cause of action; the cause of action was complete with proof of loss from EEA MIFs. All section 32(1)(b) issues must be tried.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: DSG Retail Limited; Claimant/respondent: Dixons Retail Group Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mastercard Incorporated; Defendant/appellant: Mastercard International Incorporated; Defendant/appellant: Mastercard Europe SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (competition/antitrust, Limitation) / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal, Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment application dismissed; section 32(1)(b) issues to be tried.
Legal Topics
Follow on Damages, Limitation Periods, Deliberate Concealment, Reasonable Diligence, Summary Judgment, EU Competition Law, Section 32 Limitation Act 1980
Competition Law Limitation Law Civil Procedure Follow on Damages Limitation Periods Deliberate Concealment Reasonable Diligence Summary Judgment +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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DSG Retail Limited

Claimant/respondent

Dixons Retail Group Limited

Claimant/respondent

Mastercard Incorporated

Defendant/appellant

Mastercard International Incorporated

Defendant/appellant

Mastercard Europe SA

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (competition/antitrust, Limitation) / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal, Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of rule 31(4) of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003 regarding limitation for follow-on claims
  2. 2 Whether claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered concealment of facts relevant to their right of action under section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether a 'trigger point' is required to put claimants on notice for reasonable diligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law in its construction of rule 31(4) of the 2003 Rules; claims for pre-20 June 1997 transactions are prima facie time-barred. The Tribunal also erred in its approach to section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 by treating reasonable diligence as a hypothetical test and assuming claimants were on notice to investigate. The question of whether claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts requires a trial with disclosure and evidence. The Tribunal further erred in treating claims for domestic MIFs as a distinct cause of action; the cause of action was complete with proof of loss from EEA MIFs. All section 32(1)(b) issues must be tried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment application dismissed; section 32(1)(b) issues to be tried.

Orders

  • Mastercard's appeal allowed on construction of rule 31(4); pre-20 June 1997 claims are prima facie time-barred.
  • Summary judgment application by Mastercard dismissed; section 32(1)(b) limitation issues to be determined at trial.