BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v Aventis SA & Ors [2005] CAT 2 (28 January 2005)

BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v Aventis SA & Ors [2005] CAT 2 (28 January 2005)

It is not just, at this stage of the proceedings, to order security for costs against the claimants because the defendants' liability is prima facie established, the only substantial issue is quantum, the passing on defence is novel and undecided, and there is no substantial likelihood that the defendants will benefit from a costs order. The financial risk as to costs should be borne by the defendants, not the claimants, in these circumstances.

Citation
[2005] CAT 2
Parties
Claimant: BCL Old Co Limited; Claimant: DFL Old Co Limited; Claimant: PPF Old Co Limited; Defendant: Aventis SA; Defendant: Rhodia Limited; Defendant: F Hoffmann-La Roche AG; Defendant: Roche Products Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Damages Claim Under Section 47 a Competition Act 1998 / Interlocutory Application Prior to Main Hearing
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cartel Damages, Passing on Defence, Costs Discretion, Section 47 a Competition Act 1998
Competition Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Cartel Damages Passing on Defence Costs Discretion Section 47 a Competition Act 1998

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCL Old Co Limited

Claimant

DFL Old Co Limited

Claimant

PPF Old Co Limited

Claimant

Aventis SA

Defendant

Rhodia Limited

Defendant

F Hoffmann-La Roche AG

Defendant

Roche Products Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Damages Claim Under Section 47 a Competition Act 1998 / Interlocutory Application Prior to Main Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just to order security for costs against claimants in a section 47A Competition Act 1998 damages claim
  2. 2 Whether the financial risk of costs should be borne by claimants or defendants in light of the passing on defence and the novelty of the issues

Ratio Decidendi

It is not just, at this stage of the proceedings, to order security for costs against the claimants because the defendants' liability is prima facie established, the only substantial issue is quantum, the passing on defence is novel and undecided, and there is no substantial likelihood that the defendants will benefit from a costs order. The financial risk as to costs should be borne by the defendants, not the claimants, in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs is made in favour of the defendants