Royal Mail Group Ltd v DAF Trucks Ltd
In the first trucks cartel damages trial, the tribunal found that Royal Mail and BT had paid an overcharge of 5 percent on trucks and awarded damages, rejecting the defence that the overcharge had been passed on.
Facts
Royal Mail and BT, which had bought large numbers of trucks during the period of the trucks cartel found by the European Commission, brought claims for damages against DAF Trucks. The claims raised questions about the amount of the overcharge caused by the cartel, whether the claimants had passed on any overcharge to their own customers, and whether the claimants could recover losses on trucks bought from other manufacturers.
Legal principle
The Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the cartel had caused an overcharge of 5 percent on the price of trucks, based on a detailed analysis of the economic evidence, and that DAF had not proved that the claimants had passed on the overcharge in the prices of their own services, because the cost of trucks was a small part of their overall costs and was not taken into account in setting prices. The tribunal awarded damages plus compound interest. The judgment set important benchmarks for the many other trucks cartel claims in the United Kingdom.
Related cases on private enforcement and damages
- Courage Ltd v Crehan Case C-453/99, [2001] ECR I-6297
- Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA [2008] EWCA Civ 1086, [2009] Ch 390
- Inntrepreneur Pub Co v Crehan [2006] UKHL 38, [2007] 1 AC 333
- Kone AG v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG Case C-557/12, EU:C:2014:1317
- Le Patourel v BT Group plc [2024] CAT 76
- Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, [2006] ECR I-6619
- Merricks v Mastercard Inc [2020] UKSC 51
- Provimi Ltd v Aventis Animal Nutrition SA [2003] EWHC 961 (Comm)
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
