Key Facts
- •This is a cartel damages claim (over €734 million) brought by Stellantis against Autoliv and ZF TRW for the supply of occupant safety systems (OSS products).
- •The European Commission found both defendants involved in cartels concerning OSS products, but not those sold to Stellantis.
- •The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ordered the defendants to use a single joint expert for competition economic evidence, a decision appealed by the defendants.
- •The appeal focused on whether the CAT erred in finding no relevant conflict of interest between the defendants precluding a single joint expert and the principles governing such orders.
Legal Principles
The court has power to make an order for a single joint expert if it is in accordance with the principles of dealing with the case justly and at proportionate cost.
Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015, Rule 4
If a conflict of interest relevant to the expert evidence exists, it will not ordinarily be appropriate to order joint experts.
CAT Ruling, paragraph 19(2)
The court must consider the challenges the complexity of the proceedings places on the Tribunal when considering a single joint expert order.
CAT Ruling, paragraph 19(3)
Experts have an overriding duty to the court, overriding any obligation to the instructing party.
CPR Rule 35.3; CAT Guide 2015, paragraph 7.67
The court has a duty to restrict expert evidence to that reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.
CPR Rule 35.1; CAT Guide 2015, paragraph 7.65
The existence of a conflict of interest is a material factor but not a trump card in deciding whether to order a single joint expert.
Case law analysis in sections [39-66]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found no material conflict of interest between the defendants. The CAT's decision to order a single joint expert was justified by the need to manage the complexity of the case and ensure a just and proportionate resolution. The existence of a conflict of interest, while a relevant factor, is not determinative.