WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors

WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors

A claim for unlawful means conspiracy based solely on the cartel established by the competition authority's decision falls within section 47A, as the necessary elements can be established by the infringement finding. However, conspiracy claims involving antecedent agreements or parties not addressed in the decision fall outside section 47A jurisdiction, as they require factual inquiries beyond the scope of the infringement decision.

Parties
Claimant: W. H. Newson Holding Ltd and Others; Defendant: IMI PLC; Defendant: IMI Kynoch Ltd; Defendant: Boliden AB; Third Party: AGA Rangemaster Group PLC; Fourth Party: AFG Manufacturing Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Pleadings
Outcome
Application to strike out allowed in part; claim under para 24(b) remains, claim under para 24(c) struck out.
Legal Topics
Section 47 a Competition Act 1998, EU Competition Law, Follow on Damages, Jurisdiction, Tort of Conspiracy
Competition Law Civil Procedure Section 47 a Competition Act 1998 EU Competition Law Follow on Damages Jurisdiction Tort of Conspiracy

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

AGA Rangemaster Group PLC

Third Party

AFG Manufacturing Ltd

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for unlawful means conspiracy fall within section 47A jurisdiction
  2. 2 Interpretation of section 47A Competition Act 1998
  3. 3 Scope of monetary claims under section 47A

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for unlawful means conspiracy based solely on the cartel established by the competition authority's decision falls within section 47A, as the necessary elements can be established by the infringement finding. However, conspiracy claims involving antecedent agreements or parties not addressed in the decision fall outside section 47A jurisdiction, as they require factual inquiries beyond the scope of the infringement decision.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out allowed in part; claim under para 24(b) remains, claim under para 24(c) struck out.

Orders

  • Claim under para 24(b) (conspiracy to use unlawful means based on cartel) not struck out.
  • Claim under para 24(c) (conspiracy involving antecedent agreement between IMI companies and individuals) struck out.