Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 241 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2012] UKSC 45
Court: Supreme Court

Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson SCJJ

Representation Christopher Vajda QC and Laura Elizabeth John (instructed by Taylor Vinters) for the appellant.
  Mark Brealey QC and Sarah Ford (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 24 October 2012


Practice - Appeal - Time for appeal - Respondent companies found to be part of vitamins cartel by European Commission and fined - Respondents given set period to appeal against decision and/or fine - Appellant companies seeking to bring follow-on claims for damages against respondents - UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) deciding that claims not time-barred - Court of Appeal holding that claims time-barred - Appellants appealing to Supreme Court - Whether operation of limitation period causing legal uncertainty and thus making it excessively difficult for appellant company to pursue follow-on damages claims against respondent company - .

The Case

Practice Appeal. The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the operation of a two-year limitation period on the bringing of appeals against a decision of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal caused legal uncertainty and thus made it excessively difficult for the appellant company to pursue follow-on damages claims against the respondent company, in breach of EU law. The Supreme Court held that the operation of the limitation period had been sufficiently foreseeable and that, therefore, the appeal would be dismissed.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.