CL-2024-000678 - [2025] EWHC 2531 (Comm)

AML said that AMMENA’s case included arguments that differed from the points advanced before the Tribunal. I was not persuaded that there were any material differences. Arguments always evolve, as the case progresses, but that is neither unusual nor objectionable.

AML also said that its case gave effect to the phrase “other territories” in Article 4(A)(1), in a way that AMMENA’s case did not. I did not really see the force of this. On the basis that “price” means a price that results from a commercial, arm’s length relationship and so is payable by an independent, third-party entity, in some territories a “price” (with this meaning) is paid to AML; in others (North America and China) it is not.

Finally, in its written submissions, AML’s suggestion that the DNPs charged to retail dealers in North America and China could be used as comparators was based not only on the Award at paragraph 398(1)(a) (which I have already considered), but also on the evidence of Mr Kipferler on the meaning of “factory price”. However, I have already noted that this evidence was rightly disregarded by the Tribunal. Mr Quirk KC very wisely did not press this aspect in oral submissions.