Ruling

Ruling of the Chair arising from the Pre-Trial Review in these proceedings on 4 December 2024. Five matters arose for determination: 

1. Whether the Class Representative's joint industry experts, Messrs Goss and Whitehorn, should give their oral evidence separately, and whether they should be prevented from hearing each other’s testimony;
2. whether the First to Third and Fifth Defendants (the “MN Defendants”) could rely on K Line’s industry expert evidence, and the evidence of Mr Cunningham and Mr Dent, and whether the MN Defendants could call those witnesses as their own;
3. the timetable for trial;
4. the hot tub protocol; and
5. whether the First to Third Defendants (the “MOL Defendants”) should be allowed to introduce new evidence in the form of five witness statements adduced in PSA Automobiles SA & Ors v Autoliv AB & Ors 1535/5/7/22(T) (“the PSA Statements”).

For the reasons given in the judgment, the Chair concluded that:

• Messrs Goss and Whitehorn should give their oral evidence separately, but neither should be excluded during the course of the evidence of the other.
• The MN Defendants should have permission to call the K Line Industry Experts to give evidence at trial.
• The draft timetable was to be left to the parties based upon the indications provided by the Tribunal.
• The hot tub protocol would be finalised in correspondence with the parties; and  
• The MN Defendants should have permission to rely on the PSA Statements and transcripts at trial.