Competition Appeal Tribunal requires unlimited cross-undertaking in damages as price of interim injunction

28/07/25

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has underlined the need for an unlimited cross-undertaking in damages to be provided by an applicant for an interim injunction, in a judgment handed down on 28 July 2025 in Eurospares v Porsche [2025] CAT 43.

Eurospares (Continental Parts) Ltd (“Eurospares”) is a reseller of spare parts for cars.  Like most vehicle manufacturers, Porsche operates a selective distribution system (“SDS”) for spare parts, under which Eurospares is not and has never been an authorised distributor.  Upon discovering that unauthorised resellers including Eurospares had been obtaining supplies of Porsche spare parts, Porsche gave Eurospares notice that such supplies would cease.  The parties agreed a transitional period during which Porsche continued to supply Eurospares with spare parts, at the end of which Eurospares applied for an injunction to obtain continued supplies. 

Eurospares argues that the exclusion of resellers under Porsche’s SDS breaches the Chapter I prohibition, and that Porsche’s refusal to supply it because it is not a member of the SDS is an abuse of dominance contrary to the Chapter II prohibition.

Eurospares had refused to offer a cross-undertaking in damages to compensate Porsche for loss suffered as a result of continued supplies to Eurospares.  The Tribunal underlined that it “will, almost always, require an undertaking in damages from the applicant as the “price” for granting interim relief”: [25].  In the course of the hearing, Eurospares agreed to provide an unlimited undertaking in damages ([30]).  The Tribunal then granted an interim injunction requiring Porsche to continue supplying Eurospares subject to that requirement: [60].

The Tribunal also rejected Eurospares’ application for the case to be allocated to the fast-track procedure (“FTP”) under Rule 58.  Agreeing with Porsche that the likely trial length for the claim was 7-8 days, it found that “the excess of the estimated trial length over the guideline trial estimate [of 2-3 days], if not in itself fatal to the application for allocation to the FTP, is a strong indicator that allocation to the FTP would be inappropriate”: [69].  Significantly for future cases, the Tribunal observed that “[a] claimant intending to take advantage of the FTP may need to put its claim on a narrower footing, both in terms of the legal grounds and the remedies sought”: [70].

The judgment is here.