July 9, 2024

CAT dismisses public authorities’ application to challenge truck manufacturers’ pass-on defense

The Competition Appeal Tribunal recently issued a judgment in the Adur District Council and others v TRATON SE & Others damages litigation – a case that stems from the Trucks decision (AT.39824) in which the European Commission, in 2016, concluded that certain truck manufacturers, including DAF, MAN, and Daimler, had formed and participated in a cartel, between 1997 and 2011, in violation of EU competition laws.  On July 5, 2024, the Tribunal dismissed an application filed by Adur Claimants who are public authorities in the UK that requested a strike out or, in the alternative, summary judgment of certain mitigation or overcharge arguments raised by several truck manufacturers (the “Defendants”).  The Tribunal dismissed the application after unanimously finding that the Claimants’ evidence failed to justify a strike out or summary judgment.

According to the judgment, the Defendants had submitted pass-on defenses to mitigate, in whole or in part, damages owed to public authority claimants, including an argument that any overcharge that public authorities may have suffered had been passed on to consumers or end users in the form of higher fees, increased charges for services, or increased taxes.  In response, the Claimants argued that “there is no realistic prospect of satisfying the test for legal causation” or, as a matter of legal policy, that Defendants should not be permitted to rely on pass-on allegations from a local authority to the taxpayer.

Based on a review of the evidence submitted by the parties, the Tribunal indicated that there was at least an arguable connection between the price of trucks and local authorities’ funding and budget constraints.  While the Tribunal also acknowledged the Claimants’ perceived difficulty in trying these complex issues, it emphasized that their suggestion that a strike out was warranted because the issues were “too complex” was not an “attractive or legally robust argument” and reasoned that courts must frequently grapple with complex issues.  The Tribunal also indicated that it would be inappropriate to determine such a complex issue on a summary basis and that such decisions should be reserved for trial after all evidence had been submitted for consideration.

CAT Case Summary | CAT Judgment Summary | Judgment (Strike Out/Summary Judgment)