The Court of Appeal has blocked a bid by two global technology groups to present separate expert evidence in a €734 million ($799 million) cartel damages claim, concluding that no material conflict of interest exists to prevent the co-defendants from relying on a single joint expert.
Autoliv €734M Cartel Claim: Joint Expert Requirement Upheld
Justice Colin Birss ruled on Wednesday that even if conflicts of interest existed between Autoliv and ZF TRW, they do not automatically warrant each company instructing its own economics experts. “The principles applicable to single joint experts do not involve any gloss related to the existence of conflicts of interest,” Justice Birss stated. He emphasized that these principles aim to ensure cases are managed justly and at proportionate costs.
Cartel Involvement and Allegations
In 2017 and 2019, the European Commission identified Autoliv and ZF, among others, as participants in cartels concerning “occupant safety systems,” including seat belts and airbags. Stellantis, a group of car manufacturers featuring brands like Vauxhall, Opel, and Maserati, alleged that the cartel enabled Autoliv and ZF to inflate prices charged to them.
Expert Evidence and Tribunal Rulings
Stellantis provided expert economic evidence to demonstrate the overcharge resulting from the cartel—the difference between the actual prices paid and what would have been charged without the cartel’s influence. The Competition Appeal Tribunal decided in November and reaffirmed in April that economic expert evidence from Autoliv and ZF should come from a single expert shared between the groups.
Autoliv €734M Cartel Claim: Appeal and Court’s Decision
Autoliv and ZF challenged these decisions at the Court of Appeal, arguing that a conflict of interest between the defendants could arise if Stellantis’ claim succeeded, affecting their contributions and liability extent. However, Justice Birss upheld the tribunal’s decision, stating that the case against the tech companies involved both separate and collective actions, making the conflict of no practical consequence at trial.
