Saturday 12 November 2022

CAT adds season ticket holders to train operators collective action

 

CAT adds season ticket holders to train operators collective action

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has granted a request by Justin Gutmann to include season ticket holders in his £93 million collective action against two train operators -  South Western Railway and London & South Eastern Railway - for allegedly overcharging commuters travelling outside of London.

The CAT rejected the defendants’ objections to the amendment and warned against over-complicating the class definition in an attempt to try to exclude certain categories of case where loss had been incurred.

The CAT noted that, in view of the wide range of tickets and the wide variety of individual circumstances in which rail tickets are purchased, it would not be productive to seek more elaborate refinement of the class definition at this stage.

Justin Gutmann v London & South Eastern Railway Limited and Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited and Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited, [2022] CAT 49, ruling on amendment, 10 November 2022

Tuesday 1 November 2022

Permission to appeal partially granted in trucks cartel litigation

 

Permission to appeal partially granted in trucks cartel litigation

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted limited permissions to appeal in challenges brought in the UK trucks cartel litigation (UK Trucks Claim Limited v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and Others and Road Haulage Association Limited v Man SE and others).

In June 2022 the CAT granted and refused collective proceedings orders (CPO) in the claims, under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998.

The litigation follows on from the European Commission’s 2016 trucks cartel decision.

The CAT previously ruled that both the UK Trucks Claim (UKTC) and Road Haulage Association (RHA) claims were suitable for collective proceedings, but the RHA opt-in claim was more practical despite more risks from a funding perspective.

UKTC sought permission to appeal the ruling on the basis that the CAT had incorrectly refused the opt-out application or should have accepted it to the extent not covered by the RHA opt-in application.

While the CAT dismissed the majority of the UKTC appeal grounds, it granted permission to appeal based on the assessment of the inclusion of new and used trucks in the RHA class definition, and the argument that if the RHA CPO had been confined to used trucks only, it should be considered whether the UKTC application should be allowed.

The CAT did not say that it had erred in its conclusion but reflected that it had considered multiple applications.  At this relatively new time in the development of the UK class action regime, the CAT considered this merits review by the Court of Appeal.

The CAT also granted defendants MAN and DAF permission to appeal against the certification decision on one limited ground relating to the suitability of the RHA’s claim to proceed on a collective basis.

As a result, the CAT stayed the opt-in collective damages claim to allow the competing claimant group to challenge its certification decision.

UK Trucks Claim Limited v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and others and DAF Trucks NV and others and Road Haulage Association Limited v MAN SE and others and Daimler AG [2022] CAT 48, ruling (permission to appeal)