BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v BASF SE & Ors [2008] CAT 24 (25 September 2008)

BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v BASF SE & Ors [2008] CAT 24 (25 September 2008)

The relevant date for the purposes of rule 31(2) is the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the judgment of the CFI could have been instituted in the ECJ, regardless of whether the appeal was limited to the fine. Therefore, the claim is not time-barred.

Citation
[2008] CAT 24
Parties
Claimant: BCL Old Co Limited; Claimant: DFL Old Co Limited; Claimant: PFF Old Co Limited; Claimant: Deans Food Limited; Defendant: BASF SE; Defendant: BASF PLC; Defendant: Frank Wright Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Competition Damages Claim (section 47 a Competition Act 1998) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (limitation Period)
Outcome
Claim not time-barred; preliminary issue determined in favour of the Claimants.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Follow on Damages, Cartel Infringement, Interpretation of Section 47 a Competition Act 1998
Competition Law Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Follow on Damages Cartel Infringement Interpretation of 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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCL Old Co Limited

Claimant

DFL Old Co Limited

Claimant

PFF Old Co Limited

Claimant

Deans Food Limited

Claimant

BASF SE

Defendant

BASF PLC

Defendant

Frank Wright Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Damages Claim (section 47 a Competition Act 1998) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (limitation Period)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the limitation period for bringing a claim under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 begin to run where an appeal against a European Commission infringement decision is brought only in respect of the fine imposed?
  2. 2 Does an appeal limited to the fine suspend the start of the two-year limitation period for damages claims?

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant date for the purposes of rule 31(2) is the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the judgment of the CFI could have been instituted in the ECJ, regardless of whether the appeal was limited to the fine. Therefore, the claim is not time-barred.

Court Disposition

Claim not time-barred; preliminary issue determined in favour of the Claimants.

Orders

  • The relevant date under rule 31(2) fell on the expiry of the period for appealing the CFI judgment to the ECJ.
  • Claimants' claim for damages under section 47A is within time.