WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch) (19 December 2012)

WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch) (19 December 2012)

A claim for unlawful means conspiracy based solely on the cartel conduct found in the infringement decision (para 24(b)) falls within section 47A jurisdiction and should not be struck out; however, a conspiracy claim (para 24(c)) involving factual allegations outside the infringement decision does not fall within section 47A and must be struck out.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: W. H. Newson Holding Ltd and Others; Defendant: IMI PLC; Defendant: IMI Kynoch Ltd; Defendant: Boliden AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (competition Law, Follow on Damages) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Claim
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Section 47 a Competition Act 1998, Follow on Damages, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Statutory Duty, Jurisdiction of CAT, Interpretation of Statutes
Competition Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Section 47 a Competition Act 1998 Follow on Damages Unlawful Means Conspiracy Breach of Statutory Duty Jurisdiction of CAT +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. H. Newson Holding Ltd and Others

Claimant

IMI PLC

Defendant

IMI Kynoch Ltd

Defendant

Boliden AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (competition Law, Follow on Damages) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for unlawful means conspiracy fall within the statutory jurisdiction of section 47A Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether section 47A is limited to claims for breach of statutory duty or is cause of action neutral
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded conspiracy claims require factual inquiry outside the scope of the infringement decision

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for unlawful means conspiracy based solely on the cartel conduct found in the infringement decision (para 24(b)) falls within section 47A jurisdiction and should not be struck out; however, a conspiracy claim (para 24(c)) involving factual allegations outside the infringement decision does not fall within section 47A and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Paragraph 24(b) of the claim is not struck out and may proceed under section 47A.
  • Paragraph 24(c) of the claim is struck out as falling outside section 47A.