Bord NA Mona Horticulture Ltd & Anor v British Polythene Industries Plc & Ors

Bord NA Mona Horticulture Ltd & Anor v British Polythene Industries Plc & Ors

The claimants' claims are not contrary to the European Commission's Decision, which was limited to the evidence before it and did not rule out cartel activity or anti-competitive effects in the UK and Ireland. The claims are arguable and have a real prospect of success. The English court has jurisdiction over Combipac under Article 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation because there is a serious issue to be tried against BPI as anchor defendant. Both applications are dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Bord na Mona Horticulture Limited; Claimant: Bord na Mona PLC; Defendant: British Polythene Industries PLC; Defendant: Combipac BV; Defendant: Bischof + Klein GmbH & Co KG; Defendant: FLS Plast A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Competition Claim / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment; Application to Set Aside Service for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Cartels, Article 101 TFEU, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Follow on and Stand Alone Claims
Competition Law European Union Law Civil Procedure Cartels Article 101 TFEU Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bord na Mona Horticulture Limited

Claimant

Bord na Mona PLC

Claimant

British Polythene Industries PLC

Defendant

Combipac BV

Defendant

Bischof + Klein GmbH & Co KG

Defendant

FLS Plast A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Competition Claim / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment; Application to Set Aside Service for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' claims are contrary to the findings of the European Commission Decision and thus precluded by Article 16 of Regulation 1/2003
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose a reasonable cause of action or have a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Combipac BV under the Judgments Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' claims are not contrary to the European Commission's Decision, which was limited to the evidence before it and did not rule out cartel activity or anti-competitive effects in the UK and Ireland. The claims are arguable and have a real prospect of success. The English court has jurisdiction over Combipac under Article 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation because there is a serious issue to be tried against BPI as anchor defendant. Both applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • BPI's application to strike out and/or for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Combipac's application to set aside service for lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.