OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 501 (14 April 2021)

OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 501 (14 April 2021)

Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 requires the court to assess what the actual claimant could have discovered with reasonable diligence, taking into account its status (including if it is in administration or liquidation), not by assuming it was still trading. The judge was correct to hold that OTC could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the cartel facts until they were actually discovered by a reasonably diligent insolvency practitioner, so the claim was not time-barred.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 501
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
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Deliberate Concealment, Reasonable Diligence, Follow on Damages, Cartel Damages, Section 32 Limitation Act 1980
Civil Procedure Competition Law Limitation of Actions Deliberate Concealment Reasonable Diligence Follow on Damages Cartel Damages Section 32 Limitation Act 1980

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 19 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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to a claimant in administration or liquidation when facts relevant to a claim are deliberately concealed by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the test of '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 assess what the actual claimant could have discovered with reasonable diligence, taking into account its status (including if it is in administration or liquidation), not by assuming it was still trading. The judge was correct to hold that OTC could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the cartel facts until they were actually discovered by a reasonably diligent insolvency practitioner, so the claim was not time-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay Respondent's costs of the appeals, except for costs of and occasioned by the Respondent's Notice, to be assessed if not agreed.