Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc & Ors [2013] CAT 22 (24 September 2013)

Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc & Ors [2013] CAT 22 (24 September 2013)

Permission to appeal is refused because the Defendants have not shown a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for an appeal. The Tribunal correctly applied the 'good arguable case' test for jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation and properly exercised its discretion in lifting the stay. The applications for a stay are also refused as there is no real prospect of the Defendants establishing error in the Tribunal's interpretation of Article 24, and the procedural steps required do not amount to submission to jurisdiction.

Citation
[2013] CAT 22
Parties
Claimants: Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors; Defendants: Morgan Advanced Materials Plc & Ors
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Competition Appeal Tribunal Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; applications for stay refused.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Proceedings, Case Management Powers
Competition Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Permission to Appeal Stay of Proceedings Case Management Powers

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors

Claimants

Morgan Advanced Materials Plc & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Competition Appeal Tribunal Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal the Tribunal's Ruling should be granted
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach to jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because the Defendants have not shown a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for an appeal. The Tribunal correctly applied the 'good arguable case' test for jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation and properly exercised its discretion in lifting the stay. The applications for a stay are also refused as there is no real prospect of the Defendants establishing error in the Tribunal's interpretation of Article 24, and the procedural steps required do not amount to submission to jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; applications for stay refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused.
  • Applications for a stay of the UK Claimants' claims are refused.