Eurospares applied to the Tribunal for:
an interim injunction restraining Porsche Cars Great Britain Limited (“PCGB”) and Porsche Retail Group Limited (“PRG”) (together, “Porsche”) from ceasing or refusing to supply it with genuine Porsche spare parts (“Porsche Parts”);
allocation of the proceedings to the fast-track procedure under rule 58 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015; and
cost management directions under rule 53(1)(m).
Factual Background
Eurospares is an independent online reseller of premium sports car parts, including Porsche Parts, which it has purchased from PRG since 2018. In September 2024, PRG informed Eurospares that, following instructions from PCGB, it would cease supplying Porsche Parts to resellers, citing restrictions under Porsche’s selective distribution system (“SDS”). Eurospares contends that this refusal breaches competition law and would cause serious and irreparable harm to its business.
The Tribunal’s Analysis:
Applying the principles in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 AC 396, the Tribunal considered:
- Serious Issue to be Tried: the Tribunal accepted, as conceded by Porsche, that Eurospares’ claims are not frivolous and raise a serious issue to be tried.
- Adequacy of Damages (Eurospares): the Tribunal found that cessation of supply would likely result in unquantifiable loss of profits, diminished customer retention, reduced online visibility, and broader reputational harm, which could not be adequately compensated in damages.
- Adequacy of Damages (Porsche): the Tribunal was not persuaded that continued supply would materially harm Porsche. It rejected arguments concerning undermining dealer investments and increased counterfeiting risk but acknowledged a limited risk of interference with dealer relationships, which could be addressed by the cross-undertaking ultimately offered by Eurospares during the hearing.
- Balance of Convenience: the Tribunal held that the balance favoured granting the injunction, noting the risk of serious harm to Eurospares and the benefit of preserving the status quo.
Fast-Track Procedure
The Tribunal declined to allocate the case to the fast-track procedure, finding that the likely trial length exceeded what is appropriate for the FTP, which is intended for relatively straightforward cases.
Costs Management
The Tribunal granted Eurospares’ application for cost management directions, including a cost-capping order, in light of the significant disparity in financial resources between the parties and the risk of disproportionate litigation costs.
Conclusion
The Tribunal:
(i) granted Eurospares’ application for an interim injunction;
(ii) granted its application for cost management directions;
(iii) refused its application for fast-track allocation, while recognising the need for expedited proceedings
