UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
• Mr Rowntree’s application on behalf of PRS song - writer members; and • Waterside Class Limited’s application against farmed-salmon producers, refused because the liti - gation would have principally benefited the lawyers and funder rather than the class. 5. Choice of Jurisdiction 5.1 Rules on Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Common-Law Jurisdiction Regime For claims brought after 31 December 2020 against defendants domiciled outside the EU, the common- law jurisdiction regime applies: English courts have jurisdiction where the defendant is located in England or Wales, unless another state’s courts are shown to be more appropriate. Claimants may seek permission to serve a defendant domiciled elsewhere by showing: • that the claim has a reasonable prospect of suc - cess; • that there is a basis for jurisdiction set out in the CPR; and • that England and Wales is the proper place to bring the claim. On 28 September 2020, the UK submitted a new accession instrument to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and is now bound by the Hague Convention in its own right rather than via former EU membership. Under the Hague Conven - tion, EU member states must give effect to exclusive jurisdiction agreements favouring the English courts. The Brussels Regulation For claims brought before the conclusion of the UK’s Brexit transition period, where the defendant is domi - ciled in an EU member state, jurisdiction is governed by EU Regulation 1215/2012 (the “Brussels Regula - tion”), which sets out various jurisdictional bases for antitrust claims, including: • where the defendant is domiciled; • the place where an obligation under a contract was to be performed;
• in tort, the place where the harmful event occurred (the place where the damage was sustained or where the event giving rise to it took place); • any jurisdiction agreement; • whether a party submits to a jurisdiction; and • the jurisdiction of any related actions.
6. Disclosure/Discovery 6.1 Disclosure/Discovery Procedure Standard and Specific Disclosure
Disclosure generally follows service of particulars of claim, defence, and any replies. Under standard dis - closure, parties must search for and disclose docu - ments in their control on which they rely, as well as documents adversely affecting their own or another party’s case or supporting another party’s case. Spe - cific disclosure of particular documents or categories is common in antitrust claims. The CAT Rules are sup - plemented by the CAT Practice Direction on Disclo - sure and Inspection of Evidence 2017. Non-parties may also be ordered to disclose documents likely to support the case, where necessary to dispose of it Pre-action disclosure may be ordered before a claim is issued and parties are encouraged to exchange docu - ments pre-action to resolve disputes before proceed - ings are commenced. Pre-action disclosure may be ordered where the documents sought would fall within the standard disclosure test and the court considers it desirable to dispose fairly of anticipated proceed - ings, assist resolution without proceedings, or reduce costs. Overly broad applications will be refused. The introduction of Disclosure Practice Direction 57AD (formerly the Disclosure Pilot) in the business and property courts changed the disclosure regime generally. However, it does not currently apply to com - petition law claims, unless otherwise ordered. Restriction on Documents Parties are generally restricted from using disclosed documents other than for the purpose of the litigation. However, this protection may be lost if documents are referred to in open court. Confidential and irrel - fairly or to save costs. Pre-Action Disclosure
228 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook