Legal News

Court of Appeal strikes out insufficiently detailed ‘mitigation by off-setting’ defence (NTN Corp v Stellantis NV)

Published on: 25 January 2022
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Court of Appeal strikes out insufficiently detailed ‘mitigation by off-setting’ defence (NTN Corp v Stellantis NV)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to strike out part of the defendants’ defence. The defence was pleaded in response to a claim for damages from the claimants who were victims of a cartel in which the participants had colluded in price co-ordination vis-à-vis their customers. It was the defendants’ case that the claimants had suffered no loss from the cartel’s actions, but if there had been an overcharge, the claimant would have ‘off-set’ that loss by reducing its costs elsewhere (mitigation by off-setting). It was correct to strike-out the mitigation by off-setting defence because it was insufficiently particularised and did not have a sound evidential basis. It was pleaded on a theoretical basis and should not be permitted to be run to trial. Written by James Lancaster, managing associate Trowers & Hamlins LLP. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents