Key Facts
- •Delictual claim for damages by over 1500 claimants against defendants for breaches of Brazilian competition law.
- •Claimants are orange farmers alleging price fixing cartel between 1999-2006.
- •Claims issued 13-20 years after alleged conduct.
- •Brazilian law governs the claim, with a three-year limitation period.
- •Dispute centers on when the limitation period began to run.
- •Defendants argue claims are statute-barred under Brazilian law.
- •Claimants argue limitation depends on a fact-intensive inquiry related to the liability issues.
- •Large number of common liability issues exist.
- •Application for a separate trial on limitation issues.
Legal Principles
Court's power to direct trial of any issue (CPR r.3.1(2)(j)).
CPR r.3.1(2)(j)
Caution in ordering separate trials, considering potential interlinking of issues and appeals (Wentworth Sons v Lomas).
Wentworth Sons v Lomas [2017] EWHC 3158 (Ch); [2018] 2 BCLC 696
Ten non-exclusive tests for deciding whether to direct trial of preliminary issues (Steele, summarized in Wentworth Sons).
Steele (summarized in Wentworth Sons)
Brazilian Civil Code Art. 206 (three-year limitation period).
Art. 206 of Brazil’s Civil Code
Actual and constructive knowledge sufficient to trigger limitation period under Brazilian law.
Agreement of both parties
Outcomes
Defendants' application for a separate trial on limitation issues granted.
Determining the limitation issue first will dispose of the claim if the defendants succeed and will significantly reduce costs and time. The limitation issue, while not the sole issue, is decisive. The court found that the limitation question could be determined without resolving all liability issues.