High Court calls time on refusal to supply claim against Swatch

 

The High Court has rejected an attempt by watch parts wholesaler Cousins to resurrect a claim against Swatch for abuse of dominance in a refusal to supply claim.  The Court ruled that the action would relitigate prior Swiss actions dismissing the claim.

Mr Justice Michael Green ruled that the Lugano Convention applied to the previous Swiss Court rulings.

The case dates back to supply chain events from 2015.  The Berne Commercial Court ruled in 2021 that Swatch’s refusal to supply was part of a rationalisation of its supply chain and was objectively justified and there was no need to consider the effect on UK competition.  The Federal Supreme Court subsequently upheld that decision in 2022.

The case involves consideration of application of the Lugano Convention.   The Convention still applies in this case because the action was commenced before the UK exited the Convention upon its withdrawal from the EU.  However a court can disapply the rules if a jurisdiction has manifestly different public policy objectives.   The Convention also prevents a UK court from re-examining the ruling of the court of another Convention jurisdiction on the merits.

It was argued on behalf of Cousins that the claimant was denied a right to be heard before the Swiss Courts which did not hear vast amounts of evidence relating to the UK.

Green J rejected the claims as “somewhat outlandish”.  He observed that Switzerland is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and it is not obvious that the Swiss judgments are contrary to UK public policy.

The case is a sobre reminder of what Green J described as “a great risk of straying into the forbidden arena” of re-examining the merits of prior rulings and where the impugned judgments were found to reference evidence relating to the UK.

Cousins Material House v Swatch [2024] EWHC 710