Alleged dried flower cartel is grounded

The High Court has struck out a representative action regarding an alleged air cargo cartel.

In Emerald and others v British Airways [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch), the claimant imported dried flowers from Columbia and Kenya using the air freight services of the defendant. Emerald alleged the defendant had been party to price-fixing agreements.

Emerald’s claim was brought under CPR 19.6 on behalf of two named claimants, who were said to represent all other purchasers affected by the alleged cartel. CPR 19.6 regulates the ability of a claimant to sue on behalf of himself and others. However, the Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt, struck out the representative aspect of the claim. Morritt C upheld BA’s argument that the “other persons” with “the same interests” whom the claimants claimed to represent did not share the same interests, which meant the claimants failed to satisfy the requirements of CPR 19.6. Further, the broad scope of the claim made it all the more important to be able to identify the parties who could be included in the claim at the outset, he said.

In his judgment, Morritt C says: “The mere fact that in this case the relevant class is both numerous and geographically widely spread is not of itself an objection to a representative action. Nevertheless the more extensive the class the more clearly should the other preconditions be satisfied.”