Lawyers for Aldi and the Groceries Code Adjudicator have clashed over whether the regulator should be allowed to intervene in a landmark High Court hearing over a supplier’s delisting.
Yesterday, legal teams for the two sides did battle in London as the GCA argued it should be allowed to give evidence in court.
The case revolves around farmers John Clappison and Matthew Rawson, whose W Clappison Ltd (WCL) business ran the last sprout and brassica farm in Yorkshire. They are suing the discounter for losses of £3.7m, claiming they were delisted without due notice and in direct contravention of GSCOP.
In December, The Grocer revealed Aldi was facing an unprecedented intervention by the GCA after it was accused of effectively forcing the closure of the company, one of its longest-serving suppliers.
A judge at the hearing yesterday deferred a decision on whether the GCA evidence would be allowed, with a final decision expected in the next few weeks.
Aldi, which strongly denies the company’s claims, argues the GCA’s evidence will add unnecessary complexity and costs to the trial. It also expressed fears the intervention could be a “partisan” move.
Read more: Aldi facing ‘unprecedented’ High Court action from Groceries Code Adjudicator over supplier delisting
However, James McClelland KC, speaking for the GCA, strongly denied Aldi’s claims and said as the acknowledged authority on supplier disputes the GCA should be allowed to have its say in court.
“Clearly the GCA has a very keen interest in the outcome of this case,” said McClelland.
“We are alert to the wider implications but we believe it makes sense for the High Court to be assisted by the participation of the GCA.”
He said the Adjudicator did not intend to make recommendations to the judge about a verdict.
“We do not have a partisan interest in this case, but we do want to see any judgment in this case being properly applied.”
GSCOP was the “gold standard” of deciding such matters and should be “front and centre” of the case, he told the court.
WCL supplied Aldi for more than 20 years.before the company terminated its supply agreement in February last year – after its crop for the retailer had already been sown, which the farmers said led to the collapse of the business.
It is suing the retailer for losses of £3.7m, claiming it failed to comply with its obligation to provide “reasonable notice”.
GSCOP’s rules on a reasonable notice period state a retailer is required to consider all circumstances, including the duration of supply; the characteristics of the relevant groceries; the value of the order relative to the turnover of the supplier; and the overall impact on the supplier.
Adjudicator Mark White was in court yesterday but did not give evidence.
A spokesman for the GCA said: “As the case is live, the GCA has no comment at this time.”
No comments yet