215 Vodafone Group Plc Annual Report 2024 215
Strategic report
Governance
Financials
Other information
Vodafone Group Plc Annual Report 2024
Greece: Papistas Holdings SA, Mobile Trade Stores (formerly Papistas SA) and Athanasios and Loukia Papistas v Vodafone Greece In October 2019, Mr. and Mrs. Papistas, and companies owned or controlled by them, filed several claims against Vodafone Greece with a total value of approximately €330 million for purported damage caused by the alleged abuse of dominance and wrongful termination of a franchise arrangement with a Papistas company. Lawsuits which the Papistas claimants had previously brought against Vodafone Greece, including one also citing Vodafone Group Plc and certain Directors and officers of Vodafone as defendants, were either withdrawn or left dormant. Vodafone Greece filed a counter claim and all claims were heard in February 2020. All of the Papistas claims were rejected by the Athens Court of First Instance because the stamp duty payments required to have the merits of the case considered had not been made. Vodafone Greece’s counter claim was also rejected. The Papistas claimants and Vodafone Greece each filed appeals. The appeal hearings took place on 23 February and 11 May 2023. Judgement has been received and the Court dismissed both of the appeals because the stamp duty payments had again not been made, except for one aspect of the proceedings which will be dealt with at a further hearing in February 2025. Whether the Papistas claimants will appeal the judgement is unknown as at the date of this report. Vodafone is continuing vigorously to defend the claims and based on the progress of the litigation so far the Group believes that it is highly unlikely that there will be an adverse ruling for the Group. On this basis, the Group does not expect the outcome of these claims to have a material financial impact. UK: Phones 4U in Administration v Vodafone Limited, Vodafone Group Plc and Others In December 2018, the administrators of former UK indirect seller, Phones 4U, sued the three main UK mobile network operators (‘MNOs’), including Vodafone, and their parent companies in the English High Court. The administrators alleged collusion between the MNOs to withdraw their business from Phones 4U thereby causing its collapse. The judge ordered that there should be a split trial between liability and damages. The first trial on liability took place from May to July 2022. On 10 November 2023, the High Court issued a judgement in Vodafone’s favour and rejected Phones 4U’s allegations that the defendants were in breach of competition law, consistent with Vodafone’s previously stated position that a present obligation does not exist. Phones 4U has been granted permission to appeal the judgement from the Court of Appeal. The appeal hearing will take place in May 2025. The Group intends to vigorously defend the appeal and is not able to estimate any possible loss in the event of an adverse judgement on appeal. South Africa: Kenneth Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Limited Mr Kenneth Makate, a former employee of Vodacom Pty Limited (‘Vodacom South Africa’), started legal proceedings in 2008 claiming compensation for a business idea that led to the development of a service known as ‘Please Call Me’ (‘PCM’). In July 2014, the Gauteng High Court (‘the High Court’) ruled that Mr Makate had proven the existence of a contract, but that Vodacom South Africa was not bound by that contract because the responsible director did not have authority to enter into such an agreement on Vodacom South Africa’s behalf. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal (‘the SCA’) turned down Mr Makate’s application for leave to appeal in December 2014 and March 2015, respectively. In April 2016, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (‘the Constitutional Court’) granted leave to appeal and upheld Mr Makate’s appeal. It found that Vodacom South Africa is bound by an agreement and ordered the parties to negotiate, in good faith, and agree a reasonable compensation amount payable to Mr Makate or, in the event of a deadlock, for the matter to be referred to Vodacom Group’s Chief Executive Officer (‘the CEO’) for determination. Mr Makate’s application for the aforementioned order to be varied from the determination of an amount to a compensation model based on a share of revenue, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. In accordance with the Constitutional Court order, and after negotiations failed, the CEO issued his determination on 9 January 2019. However, the CEO’s award of R47 million (€2 million) was rejected by Mr Makate, who subsequently brought an application in the High Court for judicial review against the CEO’s determination and award. The High Court, in a judgement delivered on 8 February 2022, set aside the CEO’s determination and ordered him to reassess the amount employing a set of criteria which would have resulted in the payment of a higher compensation amount, for the benefit of Mr Makate, than that determined by the CEO. Vodacom South Africa appealed against the judgement and the order of the High Court to the SCA. The SCA heard the appeal on 9 May 2023 and its judgement was handed down on 6 February 2024. A majority of three judges, with a minority of two judges dissenting, dismissed the appeal and ruled that Mr Makate is entitled to be paid 5% - 7.5% of the total revenue of the PCM product from March 2001 to the date of the judgement, plus interest. On 27 February 2024, Vodacom South Africa applied for leave to appeal the judgement and order of the SCA to the Constitutional Court, resulting in the suspension of the operation of the judgement and order of the SCA. Mr Makate is opposing Vodacom South Africa’s application for leave to appeal. Vodacom South Africa is challenging the SCA’s judgement and order on various grounds including, but not limited to the SCA ignoring the evidence placed before it on the computation of the quantum of compensation payable to Mr Makate, and the SCA issuing orders that are legally unenforceable. The CEO’s determination in 2019 amounted to R47 million (€2 million). The minority judgement of the SCA raised Mr Makate’s compensation to approximately R186 million (€9 million), while the SCA majority judgement would entitle Mr Makate to a minimum compensation amount of R29 billion (€1.4 billion). Consequently, the range of the possible compensation outcomes in this matter is very wide. The amount ultimately payable to Mr Makate is uncertain and will depend on the determination of the Constitutional Court to grant Vodacom South Africa’s application for leave to appeal and, if granted, on the success of Vodacom South Africa’s appeal against the judgement and order of the SCA, on the merits of the case. The Group is continuing to challenge the level of compensation payable to Mr Makate and a provision immaterial to the financial statements has been recorded.
Powered by FlippingBook