The High Court has ordered National Truck Rental Company Limited to provide fuller details of its claim against MAN companies in proceedings for damages arising from the European Commission’s truck cartel decision.
Mr Justice Max Barrett made the order on 5 July 2022 after the MAN defendants sought replies to six parts of a 2019 notice for particulars. The application concerned the price paid for each truck excluding VAT; whether trucks were later sold and, if so, to whom, for how much and when; the basis for claims that the company was “obliged” or “induced” to pay more; and the heads and basis of its alleged losses.
The plaintiff’s case is that the defendants’ conduct breached EU and Irish competition law and caused it to pay more for trucks than it would have paid in undistorted competition. The Commission’s 2016 decision found that certain manufacturers shared gross price information and coordinated on the timing and limits of emissions technology. The judgment records that the Commission did not make findings about the conduct’s effects on the Irish market or the prices paid by individual customers.
The MAN defendants argued that the replies they had received did not explain how the alleged cartel affected the prices paid by the plaintiff or how its loss was calculated. They also said resale details were needed to assess whether any alleged overcharge had been passed on to later purchasers. These were submissions supporting the application, not findings that the plaintiff’s claim had been proved or disproved.
The judge held that the requested details were relevant to the defendants’ preparation and to shaping discovery. He said information about the plaintiff’s own purchases and actions could be provided before discovery. On the claimed loss, he said the plaintiff’s reliance on the European Commission’s Practical Guide to quantifying harm required it to identify the specific parts of the guide on which it intended to rely.
The court granted the application and directed the plaintiff to furnish full and proper replies to the specified particulars. The ruling did not determine liability, whether the plaintiff suffered an overcharge, the amount of any damages, or the MAN defendants’ jurisdiction challenge. The judgment stated that discovery would follow; it did not set out a deadline for the replies in its concluding order.