Vauxhall Motors Ltd & Ors v Denso Automotive UK Ltd & Ors
05 Feb 2025
Share
The High Court (Bacon J) has upheld a jurisdiction challenge by defendants to a competition damages claim arising out of an alleged cartel in thermal system components for cars.
The claim concerned an alleged cartel said to have affected a value of commerce in the region of €16.5 billion, over a period of up to 16 years, relying on regulatory decisions and investigations by the European Commission and authorities in Asia, South Africa and the Americas.
The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds, and also (in the case of the Valeo Defendants) on the basis that an extension of time to effect service should be set aside.
The judgment confirms the approach to forum conveniens challenges in post-Brussels cases involving defendants served in and out of the jurisdiction. Where the Claimants had joined both service-in and service-out defendants, and despite the difference in the burden of proof as between those two categories of defendant, the correct approach was to identify the forum with which the action as a whole has the most substantial connection.
It also clarifies that, in assessing the appropriate forum in such cases, the Court may take into account matters occurring following the hearing and prior to the date of judgment. The reference to “the date of the hearing” in ISC v Guerin [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 430 at 434 and Mohammed v Bank of Kuwait [1996] 1 WLR 1483 at 1492 were to be understood as permitting the Court to consider the state of affairs at the time the jurisdiction challenge is determined.
In setting aside the extension of time for service, the judgment also explains that, where an extension of time prejudices a defendant’s limitation defence, a claimant who delays in effecting service without good reasons cannot rely on practical difficulties which arose once they took steps to do so. Where the claimants had delayed service in the hope of securing a settlement, but without any real and substantial progress in doing so, there was no good reason to have extended time based on matters which arose later.
Brian Kennelly KC and Andrew Trotter acted for the successful Valeo Defendants. The full judgment is available here.
