Norwegian salmon producers challenge UK jurisdiction in supermarket lawsuit.
Norwegian salmon producers have urged the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to dismiss a £675 million damages claim brought by UK supermarkets, arguing that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, Global Competition Review has reported.
During a hearing at the CAT, Mowi’s legal counsel, Daniel Jowell KC, argued that the lawsuits—filed last year by Asda, Iceland, Marks & Spencer, Ocado, Morrisons, Aldi, and Co-op—are based on an ongoing European Commission probe that has yet to result in an infringement decision. He asserted that any EU ruling would not be binding in the UK post-Brexit, nor is the tribunal obligated to consider the evidence in its deliberations.
Jowell noted that the claimants filed their damages action anticipating that a European Commission decision would have confirmed the existence of an alleged price-fixing cartel among Norwegian salmon producers. However, no sanctions have been issued, and a parallel investigation by the US Department of Justice was closed without any findings of wrongdoing.
The supermarkets allege that the cartel inflated spot prices for Norwegian-farmed Atlantic salmon, leading to overcharges on purchases in the UK. They argue that the Nasdaq Salmon Index, which influences global salmon prices, was also affected, impacting both spot and contract prices. Jowell contended that allegations concerning the Nasdaq index extend beyond the scope of the European Commission’s investigation, which focused solely on the Norwegian spot market.
Mowi, along with Grieg Seafood and Scottish Sea Farms, is seeking to strike out claims against their UK subsidiaries. Additionally, Bremnes, Cermaq, Lerøy, and SalMar have argued that claims against their Norwegian parent companies should be heard in Norway, where the alleged anti-competitive behaviour is said to have taken place.
Anneli Howard KC, representing the claimant supermarkets, countered that UK customers affected by the alleged cartel should be able to sue in London for losses incurred in the UK. She argued that the tribunal has a responsibility to uphold competition law and that even if collusion occurred outside the UK, its effects would have extended into the market, justifying jurisdiction.
The tribunal has yet to issue a ruling on the jurisdictional challenge.
