RECLAIMING MOTIONS OF GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AND WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL AGAINST VFS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 January 2022)

RECLAIMING MOTIONS OF GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AND WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL AGAINST VFS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 January 2022)

The pursuers did not know of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, the operation of the cartel prior to the publication of the European Commission's decision in July 2016. The information available in the public domain before that date was insufficient to put the pursuers on notice or to prompt further inquiry. Therefore, section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 applied to suspend the running of prescription, and the claims were not time-barred.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Glasgow City Council; Pursuer and Respondent: West Dunbartonshire Council; Defender and Reclaimer: VFS Financial Services Limited; Defender and Reclaimer: AB Volvo (Publ); Defender and Reclaimer: Volvo Lastvagnar AB; Defender and Reclaimer: Renault Trucks SAS; Defender and Reclaimer: Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH; Third Party and Reclaimer: MAN SE; Third Party and Reclaimer: MAN Truck & Bus SE; Third Party and Reclaimer: MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH; Third Party and Reclaimer: Daimler AG; Third Party and Reclaimer: Iveco SpA; Third Party and Reclaimer: Iveco Magirus AG; Third Party and Reclaimer: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV; Third Party and Reclaimer: CNH Industrial NV; Third Party and Reclaimer: PACCAR Inc; Third Party and Reclaimer: DAF Trucks NV; Third Party and Reclaimer: DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/competition Law) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) After Preliminary Proof on Prescription
Outcome
Reclaiming motions refused; claims not prescribed.
Legal Topics
Cartel Damages, Prescription (limitation of Actions), Fraudulent Concealment, Reasonable Diligence, EU Competition Infringement, Follow on Damages Claims
Competition Law Civil Procedure Prescription and Limitation Cartel Damages Prescription (limitation of Actions) Fraudulent Concealment Reasonable Diligence EU Competition Infringement +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

Glasgow City Council

Pursuer and Respondent

West Dunbartonshire Council

Pursuer and Respondent

VFS Financial Services Limited

Defender and Reclaimer

AB Volvo (Publ)

Defender and Reclaimer

Volvo Lastvagnar AB

Defender and Reclaimer

Renault Trucks SAS

Defender and Reclaimer

Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH

Defender and Reclaimer

MAN SE

Third Party and Reclaimer

MAN Truck & Bus SE

Third Party and Reclaimer

MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH

Third Party and Reclaimer

Daimler AG

Third Party and Reclaimer

Iveco SpA

Third Party and Reclaimer

Iveco Magirus AG

Third Party and Reclaimer

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV

Third Party and Reclaimer

CNH Industrial NV

Third Party and Reclaimer

PACCAR Inc

Third Party and Reclaimer

DAF Trucks NV

Third Party and Reclaimer

DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

Third Party and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/competition Law) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) After Preliminary Proof on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' claims for cartel damages are barred by the five-year prescriptive period under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, section 6(1)
  2. 2 Whether section 6(4)(a)(i) (fraudulent concealment) suspends the running of prescription until the pursuers knew or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the cartel
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the cartel prior to July 2016

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers did not know of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, the operation of the cartel prior to the publication of the European Commission's decision in July 2016. The information available in the public domain before that date was insufficient to put the pursuers on notice or to prompt further inquiry. Therefore, section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 applied to suspend the running of prescription, and the claims were not time-barred.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motions refused; claims not prescribed.

Orders

  • The reclaiming motions by the manufacturers are refused.
  • The actions by Glasgow City Council and West Dunbartonshire Council are not time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, section 6(1).