The UK Court of Appeal allows price-fixing damages claims brought by an Irish utility service provider against a British industrial bag manufacturer based on Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (Bord NA Mona)

Subsidiaries as “branches” for undertakings: a new route to jurisdiction under Article 5(5) of the Brussels Regulation?* Stand alone, follow on and hybrid damages claims arising out of multijurisdictional cartels are generating some of the most novel and interesting current problems in conflicts of laws, both in relation to issues of jurisdiction and applicable law. On the jurisdictional side conventional wisdom has it that there are three main routes by which Claimants can seize English jurisdiction. First, you can find a so-called “Anchor Defendant” that is a cartelist (and it must be an addressee cartelist if in the CAT so long as Mersen is good law) domiciled here, against which you can proceed as of right under Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation. Then you can bring in other

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Blackstone Chambers (London)

Quotation

Tom de la Mare, The UK Court of Appeal allows price-fixing damages claims brought by an Irish utility service provider against a British industrial bag manufacturer based on Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (Bord NA Mona), 28 November 2012, e-Competitions November 2012, Art. N° 60084

Visites 174

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues