Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A class action alleging a global conspiracy to set prices for the ocean transportation of vehicles on roll-on/roll-off vessels was commenced in June 2013 against multiple shipping defendants.

• The court assessed whether the settlement with the Höegh defendants, valued at just over two million dollars, reflected an appropriate balance of costs and benefits, representing approximately 72% recovery on the deemed loss.

• Negotiations were adversarial and protracted, involving two mediations, thereby satisfying the court that no collusion or extraneous considerations tainted the process.

• Over two million documents were individually reviewed in numerous languages across nearly 13 years of litigation, demonstrating sufficient investigation by experienced counsel.

• Counsel's fee approval at a 30% contingency rate (just over $800,000) was evaluated against 11 factors, including over eight million dollars in time expended and self-funding of the claims.

• Disbursements totalling just over $350,000 were found reasonable, with interim payment of fees approved to help finance continued prosecution against non-settling defendants.

Background of the price-fixing class action

In June 2013, plaintiff Darren Ewert commenced a class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against numerous international shipping companies, including Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, EUKOR Car Carriers, Wallenius Wilhelmsen entities, Höegh Autoliners, and several others. The lawsuit alleged a global conspiracy among these defendants to set prices for the ocean transportation of vehicles using roll-on/roll-off vessels. The case had been ongoing for nearly 13 years at the time of this decision, involving multiple court applications and the individual review of over two million documents in numerous languages. The matter was heard before the Honourable Justice Thomas in Vancouver, British Columbia, with the hearing taking place on February 5, 2026, and the oral reasons for judgment delivered on February 10, 2026.

Prior settlements in the litigation

This decision concerned the third settlement reached in the broader class action. The first settlement, with the CSAV defendants, was for $450,000 and was approved on July 22, 2017. The second settlement, with the MOL defendants, was for seven million dollars and was approved on December 12, 2023. The defendants with the largest amount of commerce remained in the action at the time of this decision, indicating that the litigation was far from concluded despite the progressive settlements.

The Höegh settlement and its terms

The application before the court sought approval of a settlement agreement with the Höegh defendants, which had already been approved in both the Ontario and Quebec courts. The settlement was valued at just over two million dollars and included a clause for the cooperation of the Höegh defendants in the ongoing action, which the court noted was of some significance in a price-fixing claim. The total potential overcharge from the Höegh defendants was in the range of $3,800,000, meaning the settlement represented approximately a 72% recovery on the deemed loss. No distribution of settlement funds was to occur until the end of the action, consistent with past practice and justified by the relatively small amount of funds available to the individual consumers compensated through the pass-through claim. The notice program had been approved by the court and completed, and no objections to the settlement were raised.

The court's four-part analysis of the settlement

The court applied a well-established framework distilling ten factors into four broad questions to assess the settlement's fairness. First, the court was satisfied that counsel of sufficient experience and ability had undertaken sufficient investigations, given the extensive document review and the nearly 13-year duration of the litigation. Second, the court found no evidence of collusion or extraneous considerations tainting the negotiations; the process was adversarial and contested, with a mediation before Mr. Cromwell nearly settling the claim before the plaintiffs went back and settled the matter at a subsequent mediation for additional money. Third, the court concluded that the settlement reflected an appropriate balance of costs and benefits, noting the 72% recovery rate, the cooperation clause, and the litigation risks including uncertainty about the period of time the conspiracy extended and the effect of the settlement on the remaining joint tortfeasor defendants. Fourth, the court was satisfied that class members had been adequately informed through a coordinated and national dissemination of notice.

Fee approval and disbursements

Counsel also sought approval of fees, disbursements incurred, and payment thereof. The court assessed the reasonableness of fees using 11 established factors. Counsel had expended over eight million dollars of time on the matter and had already received approximately $1,860,000 in fees from previous settlements. The retainer agreement provided for a 30% contingency fee, which the court found consistent with the range of 15% to 33% commonly approved by the court, resulting in fees of just over $800,000. The prior settlements had been approved at 25% contingency, but counsel had expended significantly more time and effort since those earlier settlements. The court emphasized that counsel had self-funded the claims on behalf of their clients and that no individual could reasonably be expected to fund such an action independently. Disbursements amounted to just over $350,000, with the largest, noteworthy item relating to the discovery and review of documents, which the court found represented a significant saving over similar processes provided by third-party providers. The court also approved interim payment of fees to counsel, recognizing that such payment would help finance and advance the prosecution of the action against the remaining non-settling defendants.

Ruling and outcome

The Honourable Justice Thomas approved the settlement with the Höegh defendants and granted the order as submitted by counsel, dismissing the actions against those defendants. The court also approved counsel's fees at a 30% contingency rate (just over $800,000), disbursements of just over $350,000, and payment thereof as set out in counsel's draft order. The settlement secured just over two million dollars for the class along with the monetary and strategic benefit of the Höegh defendants' cooperation in prosecuting the remaining action. The exact total amount ultimately recoverable by the class cannot be determined at this stage, as the action against the remaining defendants with the largest amount of commerce continues.