Bao Xiang International Garment Centre & Ors v British Airways Plc [2015] EWHC 3071 (Ch) (27 October 2015)

Bao Xiang International Garment Centre & Ors v British Airways Plc [2015] EWHC 3071 (Ch) (27 October 2015)

None of the claimants had authorised or validly ratified Hausfeld's commencement of proceedings in their name; the returned forms did not constitute valid ratification under English law; the claim was issued without authority and is an abuse of process; the entire claim must be struck out.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3071 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bao Xiang International Garment Centre and Others; Defendant/applicant: British Airways PLC; Applicant: Qantas Airways Ltd; Applicant: Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE Ltd; Applicant: Singapore Airlines Ltd; Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd; Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Judgment on Strike Out Application
Outcome
claim struck out
Legal Topics
Authority to Commence Proceedings, Ratification of Unauthorised Acts, Abuse of Process, Price Fixing Cartel, Statement of Truth
Civil Procedure Competition Law Agency Law Authority to Commence Proceedings Ratification of Unauthorised Acts Abuse of Process Price Fixing Cartel Statement of Truth

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Bao Xiang International Garment Centre and Others

Claimant/respondent

British Airways PLC

Defendant/applicant

Qantas Airways Ltd

Applicant

Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE Ltd

Applicant

Singapore Airlines Ltd

Applicant

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd

Applicant

Cargolux Airlines International SA

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Judgment on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hausfeld had authority to commence proceedings on behalf of 64,697 claimants
  2. 2 Whether subsequent ratification by claimants is valid under English law
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

None of the claimants had authorised or validly ratified Hausfeld's commencement of proceedings in their name; the returned forms did not constitute valid ratification under English law; the claim was issued without authority and is an abuse of process; the entire claim must be struck out.

Court Disposition

claim struck out

Orders

  • The entire claim is struck out for lack of authority and abuse of process.