scholarly journals Collective Proceedings for Damages in UK Competition Law Case Comment to the Judgment Merricks v Mastercard [2019] EWCA Civ 674

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 245-257
Author(s):  
Kathryn McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Legal Test ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Merricks v Mastercard [2019] is the first action under the newly developed ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings regime for aggregate damages under UK competition law to be considered by the UK Court of Appeal. It is significant for both the level of damages (£14 billion (€16 billion)) and the clarification of the legal test at the certification stage for the suitability for an aggregate award: the method for calculation of the aggregate damages and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court’s lowering of these thresholds importantly opens the door to future class actions and reasserts the importance of collective proceedings as a valuable means of redress for competition law infringements. The decision has now been appealed to the UK Supreme Court where these issues may be further clarified and resolved.

Morrisons off the hook as employers welcome clarity on vicarious liability for data breach

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 504-506
Author(s):  
Emma Flett ◽  
Jenny Wilson ◽  
Rebecca Gover
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Data Controller ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract The UK Supreme Court has granted the appeal of supermarket chain WW Morrison Supermarkets plc (Morrisons), finding that the Court of Appeal had misunderstood a number of the governing principles of vicarious liability. Considering Morrisons’ liability afresh, the Supreme Court clarified that the motive and authorized acts of the wrongdoing employee are highly material to a finding of vicarious liability, whilst a causal chain of events is not. Whilst Morrisons’ victory is a welcome clarification on the law of vicarious liability, data controllers should take note: had Morrisons not been a sophisticated data controller paying particular attention to its obligations under data protection legislation, the outcome would likely have been more of a cautionary tale.

scholarly journals RATIONALISING ANTICIPATORY BREACH IN EXECUTED CONTRACTS

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Yihan Goh ◽  
Man Yip
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Anticipatory Breach ◽  
English Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

RATIONALISING the doctrine of anticipatory breach is notoriously difficult. This may explain the complete lack of attempt by the UK Supreme Court to address its conceptual difficulties in its recent judgment in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43; [2015] 3 All E.R. 1082. It is therefore of interest that the Singapore Court of Appeal in The “STX Mumbai” [2015] SGCA 35; [2015] 5 S.L.R. 1 explained why the doctrine of anticipatory breach can be applied to executed contracts (in the sense of being fully executed by the innocent party). Whilst anticipatory breach applies similarly under English law, the English courts have never considered the underlying justification, save to say in a case with a partially executed contract that “it would be very strange and hardly unworkable” if the innocent party had to wait until the time for performance (Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd. [1973] A.C. 331, 356, per Lord Simon).

scholarly journals Breakthrough in Parent Company Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-748
Author(s):  
Cees van Dam
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Parent Companies ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Two English and two Dutch cases have recently clarified the (potential) liability of parent companies vis-à-vis third parties in relation to damage caused by their subsidiaries. They concern the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell, the Hague Court of Appeal in Oguru v Shell and the Hague District Court in Milieudefensie v Shell (climate change case).

Investment Arbitration and EU (Competition) Law – Lessons Learned from the Micula Saga

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 330-354
Author(s):  
Alesia Tsiabus ◽  
Guillaume Croisant
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Great Opportunity ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

On 19 February 2020, in the latest episode to date of the long-running Micula saga, the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court gave its green light to the enforcement in the (UK) of the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania (Award) under the 2002 Sweden-Romania bilateral investment treaty (BIT), despite the fact that the question of whether this Award constitutes state aid prohibited under EU law was pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Supreme Court ruled that the UK enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention could not be affected by the EU duty of sincere cooperation, as the UK’s ratification of the ICSID Convention preceded its accession to the EU. The UK Supreme Court judgment, and the prior main episodes of the Micula saga in the framework of the ICSID, EU state aid and enforcement proceedings, offer a great opportunity to explore the increasingly tumultuous relationship between investment arbitration and EU (competition) law, in particular the compatibility of intra- EU investment arbitrations under the ICSID Convention with EU law and the coexistence of selective protections under international investment law with EU state aid law.

Shanks v Unilever: the sweet smell of success

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-78
Author(s):  
Hugh Dunlop ◽  
Janet Strath (Paralegal)
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Employee Compensation ◽  
Sweet Smell ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract Shanks v Unilever Plc & Ors [2019] UKSC 45 (23 October 2019) The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from a Court of Appeal ruling and found that Professor Ian Shanks was entitled to £2 million in employee compensation under sections 40(1) and 41 of the Patents Act 1977.

Private Enforcement in the UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-336
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

In Chapter 12, Barry Rodger retraces his footsteps in relation to his contributions in both earlier collections on the theme of private enforcement in the UK, with a particular slant on the extent to which consumers have benefited, or may benefit, from statutory and case law developments in the area. Accordingly, this chapter assesses how private enforcement of competition law rights has developed in the UK over the last twenty years. Key legislative developments, inter alia the Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, have transformed the private enforcement architecture, notably with the introduction, and increasingly significant and enhanced role of the specialist tribunal, Competition Appeal Tribunal, and the availability of an opt-out collective redress mechanism. The chapter assesses the key UK statutory and case law developments, in comparison with the US private antitrust enforcement model, to reflect on the disappointing extent to which effective redress for consumers has been provided to date, despite those legal and institutional developments, although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Merricks should be pivotal in this context.

scholarly journals Form and substance in contract damages

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-239
Author(s):  
David McLauchlan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Business Travel ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
American Law ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article discusses the role of form and substance in the modern law of contract both generally and with specific reference to the law of damages for breach of contract and, in particular, the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2017] UKSC 32 and Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (The New Flamenco) [2017] UKSC 43. Although it was probably true to say when Atiyah and Summers wrote in Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law over 30 years ago that ‘the English law of contractual damages continues to be treated by judges and writers as governed by highly formal rules’, it would be wrong to describe the reasoning employed by judges in modern times when explaining, refining and applying these rules as highly formal. Particularly in appellate decisions, judicial reasoning is usually an amalgam of what the authors would describe as formal and substantive considerations. Indeed, the formal reason for supporting a decision may be preferred precisely because it provides the just or most convenient solution to the dispute, as in Swynson v Lowick Rose. In that case the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal that denial of the damages claimed ‘would be a triumph of form over substance’, preferring the view of the dissenting judge who said that ‘the form here is the substance’. And, while the decision in The New Flamenco appears at first sight to rest on formal, arguably formalistic, reasoning, a closer reading reveals that substantive considerations influenced the outcome of the appeal.

REFLECTIVE LOSS IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Stephen Laing
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document