Cousins Material House Limited v The Swatch Group AG & Ors

Cousins Material House Limited v The Swatch Group AG & Ors

There was no manifest breach of Article 6 ECHR or public policy by the Swiss Courts; the Swiss judgments are entitled to recognition under the Lugano Convention. All issues raised by Cousins, including those under Article 101 TFEU and s.60A Competition Act 1998, were determined or could and should have been raised in Switzerland. Cousins is estopped by res judicata and/or issue estoppel from pursuing its claim in England.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Cousins Material House Limited; Defendant / Applicant: The Swatch Group AG; Defendant / Applicant: ETA SA Manufacture Horlogère Suisse; Defendant / Applicant: The Swatch Group (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Competition Law Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge / Application to Set Aside or Stay Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed / Amended Claim Form set aside; declaration granted that the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Lugano Convention, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Article 101 and 102 TFEU, Section 2 and 18 Competition Act 1998, Section 60 a Competition Act 1998
Competition Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Lugano Convention Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Article 101 and 102 TFEU +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cousins Material House Limited

Claimant / Respondent

The Swatch Group AG

Defendant / Applicant

ETA SA Manufacture Horlogère Suisse

Defendant / Applicant

The Swatch Group (UK) Limited

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Competition Law Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge / Application to Set Aside or Stay Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should recognise and enforce the Swiss judgments under the Lugano Convention, thereby barring the English claim as res judicata
  2. 2 Whether there was a manifest breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial) by the Swiss Courts justifying refusal of recognition under Article 34(1) Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether any issues (Article 101 TFEU claim re: SDS, s.60A Competition Act 1998 divergence) remain undecided and not subject to estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

There was no manifest breach of Article 6 ECHR or public policy by the Swiss Courts; the Swiss judgments are entitled to recognition under the Lugano Convention. All issues raised by Cousins, including those under Article 101 TFEU and s.60A Competition Act 1998, were determined or could and should have been raised in Switzerland. Cousins is estopped by res judicata and/or issue estoppel from pursuing its claim in England.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed / Amended Claim Form set aside; declaration granted that the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declaration that the High Court will not exercise any jurisdiction it may have to try Cousins’ claim.
  • Amended Claim Form issued on 5 June 2017 set aside.