Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Ors v Visa Inc & Ors

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Ors v Visa Inc & Ors

The facts necessary to plead a complete cause of action for breach of competition law were available to the appellants before the limitation dates. Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 does not postpone the limitation period where only additional facts that might strengthen the claim or inform economic assessments are concealed. Therefore, claims for periods prior to the limitation dates are statute-barred. The judge erred in awarding indemnity costs as the appellants' arguments, though unsuccessful, were not abusive or motivated by improper purpose.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arcadia Group Brands Limited and others; Claimant/appellant: Asda Stores Limited; Claimant/appellant: B&Q PLC; Claimant/appellant: Comet Group Limited (in liquidation); Claimant/appellant: Debenhams Retail PLC and others; Claimant/appellant: House of Fraser (Stores) Limited; Claimant/appellant: Iceland Foods Limited; Claimant/appellant: New Look Retailers Limited; Claimant/appellant: Next Retail Limited; Claimant/appellant: Record Shop 2 Limited (in liquidation) and others; Claimant/appellant: WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC; Claimant/appellant: Argos Limited and others; Defendant/respondent: Visa Inc; Defendant/respondent: Visa International Service Association; Defendant/respondent: Visa Europe Limited; Defendant/respondent: Visa Europe Services Inc; Defendant/respondent: Visa UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of limitation and striking out/amendment; appeal allowed in respect of indemnity costs order.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Deliberate Concealment, Competition Damages, Summary Judgment, Costs Assessment
Competition Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Limitation Period Deliberate Concealment Competition Damages Summary Judgment Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Arcadia Group Brands Limited and others

Claimant/appellant

Asda Stores Limited

Claimant/appellant

B&Q PLC

Claimant/appellant

Comet Group Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant/appellant

Debenhams Retail PLC and others

Claimant/appellant

House of Fraser (Stores) Limited

Claimant/appellant

Iceland Foods Limited

Claimant/appellant

New Look Retailers Limited

Claimant/appellant

Next Retail Limited

Claimant/appellant

Record Shop 2 Limited (in liquidation) and others

Claimant/appellant

WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC

Claimant/appellant

Argos Limited and others

Claimant/appellant

Visa Inc

Defendant/respondent

Visa International Service Association

Defendant/respondent

Visa Europe Limited

Defendant/respondent

Visa Europe Services Inc

Defendant/respondent

Visa UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones the limitation period for competition law claims due to alleged deliberate concealment by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claims for damages prior to the limitation dates are time-barred
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in awarding indemnity costs against the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The facts necessary to plead a complete cause of action for breach of competition law were available to the appellants before the limitation dates. Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 does not postpone the limitation period where only additional facts that might strengthen the claim or inform economic assessments are concealed. Therefore, claims for periods prior to the limitation dates are statute-barred. The judge erred in awarding indemnity costs as the appellants' arguments, though unsuccessful, were not abusive or motivated by improper purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of limitation and striking out/amendment; appeal allowed in respect of indemnity costs order.

Orders

  • Claims for periods prior to the limitation dates are struck out or amended as per the judge's order.
  • Respondents' costs of the applications to be paid by the appellants, assessed on the standard basis, not indemnity basis.