MICROSOFT MOBILE OY (LTD) V SONY EUROPE LTD AND OTHERS

[2017] EWHC 374 (Ch), Chancery Division, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, 28 February 2017

Arbitration - Alleged breach of EU competition rules - Scope of arbitration clause - Whether clause applied to tort claims - Whether claim for breach of EU competition rules was arbitrable - Arbitration Act 1996, section 9 - Jurisdiction over other defendants - Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 6B, paras 3.1(3) and 3.1(9) - Treaty for European Union, article 101 - Brussels Regulation Recast, article 4

MM, a Finnish company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, manufactured and distributed mobile phones containing Li-on batteries. In September 2013 MM acquired Nokia, carrying on the same business. MM brought proceedings in its own right and as assignee of the rights of Nokia, against the suppliers of Li-on batteries: Sony Europe (an English company); Sony Corporation (a Japanese company); LG Chem Ltd (a South Korean company); and Samsung SDI Ltd (a South Korean company). The claim was for damages for breach of the competition rules in article 101 of the Treaty for European Union, alleging that the four companies had formed a cartel the effect of which had been to increase the price of Li-on batteries. MM claimed that it had jurisdiction over Sony Europe by virtue of Sony Europe's English domicile. MM also obtained permission for service of the other companies outside the jurisdiction under CPR Practice Direction 6B, paras 3.1(3) (necessary and proper parties to the claim against Sony Europe) and 3.1(9)(a) (the claim was in tort and damage had been sustained within the jurisdiction). The defendants claimed that the English court did not have jurisdiction over any of them.