You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items :

Clear All
You do not have access to this content

Edward Coulson and Andrew Leitch

1. Introduction This article follows our earlier article in the Competition Law Journal , 1 which discussed the High Court's decision to strike out the follow-on damages claims brought by companies within the iiyama group (‘iiyama’) in relation to cartelized cathode ray tube glass (‘CRT Glass’) and cathode ray tubes (‘CRT’) ( iiyama v. Schott 2 (‘ iiyama 1 ’)), and to narrow iiyama's claims in relation to cartelized liquid crystal displays (‘LCD’) ( iiyama v. Samsung 3 (‘ iiyama 2 ’)). iiyama appealed those decisions and the Court of Appeal has now handed

You do not have access to this content

John Kwan

favourable to their case emerging during disclosure. Two examples suffice to illustrate this practice: (i) the ‘knowing implementation’ line of case law following on from the Court of Appeal's judgment in Cooper Tire ; 29 and (ii) the Court of Appeal's judgment in iiyama . 30 a ‘Knowing implementation’ Although the jurisdiction regime under the Recast Brussels Regulation 31 allows claimants to sue UK defendants as of right in England and Wales, 32 the prior infringement decisions on which claimants rely may be addressed only to entities domiciled outside the UK. Where

You do not have access to this content

Matthew O'Regan

Court and one of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘CAT’)) that had reached different conclusions in damages actions brought against MasterCard and Visa, 5 confirming that their multilateral interchange fees (‘MIFs’) infringed Article 101(1) and clarifying, amongst other things, that in order to establish pass-on, the defendants had to establish a sufficiently close causal connection between the overcharge and an increase in the direct purchaser's prices. In February, in iiyama , the Court of Appeal provided guidance on both indirect claims and the territorial limits

You do not have access to this content

Andrew Leitch

actions being pursued in the English courts. Cases which have established a low bar for establishing implementation, such as Vattenfall , combined with judicial reticence to determine fact-sensitive issues relevant to jurisdiction at an early stage, whether by an application by the defendant for the claim to be struck out or for summary judgment, prior to disclosure (e.g. iiyama and Media Saturn ) have contributed to that difficulty. The challenges with the best prospects for success open to defendants to defeat private damages claims in the English courts at a