Stellantis Auto SAS & Ors v Autoliv AB & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a cartel claim brought by a group of car manufacturing companies ("Plaintiffs") against manufacturers of occupant safety systems ("Defendants"), including two main defendant groups: Company A and Company B. The Plaintiffs seek damages exceeding €734 million for alleged cartel activities involving seat belts and airbags supplied to them. The European Commission had previously found cartel infringements by the Defendants in two decisions relating to sales to various car manufacturers, though not directly concerning the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege a single cartel or alternatively individual cartels with the same membership affecting them, or an "umbrella" claim based on price increases caused by the cartels.

The Defendants challenged the procedure relating to expert economic evidence. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") directed that the Defendants share a single joint economic expert rather than each instructing separate experts. The Defendants appealed this decision, raising questions about conflicts of interest and the principles applicable to single joint experts in such contexts. The appeal was heard following procedural developments including withdrawal of one Defendant and amendments to pleadings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the CAT was correct in holding that no relevant conflict of interest arose from directing a single joint expert for the Defendants' economic evidence.
2. What legal principles should govern the appointment of a single joint expert in cases involving multiple parties with potentially conflicting interests.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The CAT erred in law by concluding there were no material conflicts of interest between the Defendant groups regarding the expert economic evidence.
• Following the Court of Appeal decision in UK Trucks, the existence of a conflict of interest in econometric expert evidence necessitates separate experts for each group.
• The existence of a conflict of interest should be a decisive factor ("a trump card") requiring separate experts, irrespective of other discretionary considerations.

Respondents' Arguments

• The CAT was correct in finding no relevant conflict of interest in this case concerning the economic expert evidence.
• The mere existence of a conflict of interest is insufficient to require separate experts; the proper test is whether a party would be disabled from presenting its case.
• Expert evidence is subject to an overriding duty to assist the court, which mitigates concerns about conflicts between instructing parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming that the CAT has the power to direct the use of a single joint expert if consistent with the governing principles of dealing with the case justly and at proportionate cost. The court examined the legal framework, including the CAT Rules, the CAT Guide, and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35, which regulate expert evidence and emphasize restricting expert evidence to what is reasonably necessary.

The court analysed relevant case law, noting that while the existence of a conflict of interest is a material factor, it is not determinative ("no trump card") in deciding whether to appoint a single joint expert. The overriding objective and proportionality remain paramount. The court distinguished the UK Trucks decision, explaining that the conflict there arose within a single class representative organisation with divided loyalty, necessitating separate experts. In contrast, the Defendants here run mutually consistent defenses and do not have an internal divided loyalty.

The court found that alleged conflicts related to apportionment and the umbrella damages claim were either not presently relevant or incapable of being addressed through expert economic evidence in a meaningful way. The court accepted the CAT's reasoning that multiple experts would exponentially increase complexity and cost, undermining the just disposal of the case.

Further, the court emphasized the expert's overriding duty to assist the tribunal, which mitigates concerns about conflicts between instructing parties. The court rejected the appellants' submission that the mere existence of conflicts mandates separate experts, holding that the court must balance all circumstances under the overriding objective and duty to restrict expert evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the CAT's decision to require a single joint economic expert shared by the Defendant groups.

This decision confirms that the existence of conflicts of interest between parties instructing a single joint expert does not automatically preclude such an order. Instead, courts and tribunals must apply case management principles emphasizing just, proportionate, and efficient resolution of disputes. The ruling reinforces the discretion of courts and tribunals to manage expert evidence pragmatically, particularly in complex multi-party cases involving econometric analysis where multiple experts would multiply complexity and cost. No new precedent was established beyond affirming existing principles and their application to the facts of this case.