DSG Retail Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 671 (22 May 2020)

DSG Retail Ltd v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 671 (22 May 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that rule 31(4) of the 2003 Rules is not ambiguous and preserves accrued limitation rights for claims that would have been time-barred in court before section 47A came into force. Therefore, claims for losses sustained more than six years prior to 20 June 2003 are time-barred. The Tribunal erred in its construction of rule 31(4). On the section 32(1)(b) issue, the Court found that the Tribunal misapplied the 'reasonable diligence' test by assuming claimants are always on notice to investigate, rather than requiring a trigger to investigate. The issues raised were points of law suitable for appeal.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 671
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
Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal's construction of rule 31(4) overturned; claims for losses before 20 June 1997 are time-barred; section 32(1)(b) issues remitted for further determination.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Follow on Damages, Deliberate Concealment, Interpretation of Tribunal Rules
Competition Law Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Follow on Damages Deliberate Concealment Interpretation of Tribunal Rules

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 21 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

Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

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 under section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal misapplied the 'statement of claim' and 'reasonable diligence' tests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that rule 31(4) of the 2003 Rules is not ambiguous and preserves accrued limitation rights for claims that would have been time-barred in court before section 47A came into force. Therefore, claims for losses sustained more than six years prior to 20 June 2003 are time-barred. The Tribunal erred in its construction of rule 31(4). On the section 32(1)(b) issue, the Court found that the Tribunal misapplied the 'reasonable diligence' test by assuming claimants are always on notice to investigate, rather than requiring a trigger to investigate. The issues raised were points of law suitable for appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal's construction of rule 31(4) overturned; claims for losses before 20 June 1997 are time-barred; section 32(1)(b) issues remitted for further determination.

Orders

  • Claims for losses sustained before 20 June 1997 are statute-barred and struck out.
  • Section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 issues to be determined at trial or further hearing.