Judgment of the President on the Claimants’ application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings brought under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA 1998”). The Claimants in these two separate but similar actions sought permission under rule 31 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 for service out of the jurisdiction on some of the Defendants.
One action (Case 1377) is against two companies in the Apple group: Apple Inc (“A1”), a US company incorporated and based in California; and Apple (UK) Ltd (“A2”), an English company and a wholly owned subsidiary of A1 (“the Apple action”).
The other action (Case 1378) is against five companies in the Google/Alphabet group: Alphabet Inc (“G1”), a US company incorporated in Delaware and based in California; Google LLC (“G2”), a US company also incorporated in Delaware and based in California; Google Ireland Ltd (“G3”), incorporated in Ireland; Google Commerce Ltd (“G4”), also incorporated in Ireland; and Google Payment Ltd (“G5”), an English company (“the Google action”).
Both actions allege breaches of EU and UK competition law arising from the requirements imposed regarding software applications on the two main operating systems for mobile devices (i.e. smartphones and tablets).
No permission is needed to serve defendants in the jurisdiction. Accordingly, an order was not required to enable service on the Defendants that are English companies: A2 in the Apple Action and G5 in the Google Action.
Both actions were commenced before the end of the implementation period under the Agreement for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (“the Withdrawal Agreement”). The provisions regarding jurisdiction in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the Brussels Regulation (Recast), therefore apply to both these proceedings, pursuant to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment)(EU Exit) Regulations 2019, reg 93A and Art 67(1)(a) of the Withdrawal Agreement. Accordingly, permission to serve G4 and G5, whose domicile is in an EU Member State, was not required.
Service on the respective US Defendants, A1 in the Apple action and G1 and G2 in the Google action requires the permission of the Tribunal.
For the reasons set out in the Judgment:
- In the Apple action (Case 1377), the application for permission to serve the proceedings on A1 out of the jurisdiction was refused.
- In the Google action (Case 1378), the application for permission to serve the proceedings on G1 and G2 out of the jurisdiction was granted for certain claims for breach of the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions under the CA 1998, and the injunctions claimed at paras (c), (d) and (h) of the prayer to the Claim Form. Permission was refused as regards the other claims made.
