CAT orders gown supplier to explain why its products claims were reasonable in competition damages claim

 

 

 

 

CAT orders gown supplier to explain why its products claims were reasonable in competition damages claim

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has ordered Churchill Gowns to respond to allegations in its competition law damages claim that its action is barred because it fraudulently misled its customers about its products and its director knowingly, or recklessly, spread misleading information.

The subject-matter of the dispute is of more than legal interest for barristers and academics as it concerns a claim against companies Ede & Ravenscroft, William Northam and Irish Legal & Academic of compelling academic institutions to purchase academic dress exclusively from them.

Churchill has been asked to explain why it maintains that it had reasonable grounds to claim that its gowns were made entirely from recycled plastic bottles.

The case is a sober reminder of the perils of disclosure.  The claimant disclosed over 4,600 documents into a data room and produced redacted versions of over 400 which it renumbered after the defendant started reviewing them.  The CAT ruled that Churchill Gowns should revisit 514 documents to identify 400 documents which it claimed were confidential and then tally their names with the numbered redacted copies of the same.

The dispute is listed for trial in January.

1351/5/7/20, Churchill Gowns Limited and Student Gowns Limited v Ede & Ravenscroft Limited and Others