High Court upholds forum challenge in car parts litigation

21/02/25

On 5 February 2025, Bacon J handed down judgment granting applications challenging on forum non conveniens grounds the High Court’s jurisdiction to try  claims for damages for breach of competition law brought by companies within the Stellantis group.

On 8 March 2017, the European Commission found that certain companies in the DENSO, Valeo and Sanden groups of companies had infringed Article 101(1) TFEU by coordinating the supply of various thermal system components for cars to several car manufacturers (not including Stellantis) (the “Infringements”).

On 7 March 2022, Stellantis issued proceedings against 13 companies in the DENSO, Valeo and Sanden groups claiming damages as a result of the Infringements. Three of those companies were served in England or Wales (the “Service-In Defendants”) and the remaining ten were served overseas (the “Service-Out Defendants”). 

Both the Service-In and Service-Out Defendants contested jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds. The Defendants argued that the claims have minimal connection with England and that the most appropriate forum is France.

The claimants contended that the proceedings have "strong and substantial" links to England on the basis that the Defendants served within the jurisdiction included addressees of the Commission Decision and that certain supplies were made in the UK by the Defendants to the Claimants. They also referred to the experience of the courts of England and Wales in dealing with complex international competition litigation.  However, Bacon J held that the centre of gravity of the supplies within the scope of the claim, the evidence as to the location of witnesses and documents all pointed in favour of France as the appropriate forum and granted the applications accordingly.

The claimants settled with Sanden between the hearing and the hand-down of Judgment. As part of the settlement the Sanden Defendants supplied certain co-operation documents to the Claimants. The Claimants sought to introduce these documents into the applications by way of fresh evidence, but the Judge did not consider that the new documents had any material impact on the question of forum non conveniens. 

The judgment is available here.