The CAT has held that a “decision”, for the purposes of section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 in respect of follow-on claims for damages, means a decision relating to a specific defendant and not all of the addressees of the initial cartel infringement decision. If an addressee does not appeal the infringement decision, a third party must usually bring a follow-on claim for damages against that defendant within two years of the date that its option to appeal expired. This issue arose in relation to an action brought by Morgan Crucible, a defendant in a follow-on claim against members of the electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products cartel. The CAT deviated from its previous, wider interpretation of a “decision” and held that the claim brought by Deutsch Bahn and others was time-barred against Morgan Crucible. Consequently, the action was struck out. Although not strictly bound by its previous decisions, such a reversal is unusual. The CAT has contradicted its own 2007 case law which prevented a damages action from being brought against addressees of the same European cartel decision while appeals, brought by other addressees, remained undecided.