Tristan Jones
-
The Trouble with Economists
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the trucks cartel claim raises some serious questions about expert economic evidence. In this post I want to flesh out some of the challenges and then float some suggestions for improvements. The context Many readers will know the basic background. Back in 2016, the European Commission decided that… Continue reading
-
Collective Actions in the Supreme Court
The big news from today’s UK Supreme Court collective action decision in Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51 is not only that Mr Merricks won and defeated the appeal, but that the Supreme Court approached the issues in a far more claimant-friendly way than even the Court of Appeal had done. The headlines are that,… Continue reading
-
Litigation in the shadow of COVID-19
Readers of this blog may be interested to know that Blackstone Chambers has set up a dedicated webpage providing legal insights into COVID-19. In the most recent article, Credit When Credit Won’t Do, Kieron Beal QC and Tom Mountford consider the prospects of group litigation being used to help consumers whose holiday plans have been… Continue reading
-
Merricks v MasterCard: Collective Actions Reinvigorated
The Court of Appeal today gave its much-anticipated judgment in the application to bring collective proceedings against MasterCard: see Merricks v MasterCard Incorporated and others [2019] EWCA Civ 674. It is a major victory for the Applicant and will reinvigorate the collective proceedings regime, which has seen disappointingly few cases brought since its introduction in 2015. Continue reading
-
Retrospective interpretation: DSG v MasterCard
The latest battle over limitation in Competition damages claims was a victory for the claimants – see DSG Retail Ltd v MasterCard Inc [2019] CAT 5. In some ways it is a surprising decision, because the Competition Appeal Tribunal has decided that when s.47A of the Competition Act was enacted in 2003, certain claims which were time-barred… Continue reading
-
Jurisdiction after a no deal Brexit
Time for some more speculation about the future which awaits us after 29 March. The topic this time is jurisdiction. As the readers of this blog will know, the rules of civil jurisdiction across the EU are currently governed by the Brussels Recast regulation. The basic framework is: A defendant domiciled in a Member State… Continue reading
-
Subsidiarity liability: Biogaran
I wrote a blog a few months ago on the circumstances in which a subsidiary can be held liable for the infringing conduct of its parent. That is a somewhat special interest subject which might be said to have received more than its fair share of attention among English judges and lawyers. However, I cannot resist… Continue reading
-
Anchoring claims to a UK subsidiary
The recent decision of the High Court in Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) is another example of claimants being allowed to use non-addressee English subsidiaries as anchor defendants for their competition damages claims. It is also another example of the court considering but not actually having to decide the interesting legal… Continue reading
-
Can several wrongs make a right? Gallaher v CMA in the Court of Appeal
When a public body makes a mistake in its treatment of one person, can fairness require it to treat other people in the same way – even if that means amplifying the effects of the mistake? According to the Court of Appeal in the latest instalment of the tobacco litigation, the answer is yes. The… Continue reading
-
Economic complexity: CAT vs High Court
One of the advantages of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is said to be the fact that its three-member panel typically includes an economist. But is that really such a big advantage over the High Court? The question is particularly topical in light of a couple of recent trends. On the one hand, recent legislative developments have… Continue reading
-
Asset acquisitions and mergers: Eurotunnel in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Eurotunnel II ([2015] UKHL 75) brings some much-needed clarity to what was becoming a rather opaque corner of the UK merger regime. It also contains statements of general principle which are bound to make it one of the most frequently-cited merger cases. The case concerns the circumstances in which an asset… Continue reading
-
Standalone claims in the CAT: bypassing the transitional rules
We have written before about the problems inherent in the transitional provisions of the new Consumer Rights Act 2015 (see Tom de la Mare QC’s blog here). A recent decision from Mr Justice Barling in the Mastercard litigation places a (small) sticking plaster over some of the difficulties. One problem is that the transitional provisions… Continue reading
-
Asset acquisitions revisited
Earlier this year, I suggested that the law on when an asset acquisition might amount to a merger was somewhat opaque. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eurotunnel II [2015] EWCA Civ 487 has brought some additional clarity, although the messy procedural history of that case has caused its own problems. A quick re-cap on… Continue reading
-
Settling cartel damages actions: contribution defendants beware
Anyone who has ever tried to settle a cartel damages case will know that the law relating to settlements is fraught with difficulty. The recent judgment of the High Court in IMI Plc v Delta Ltd [2015] EWHC 1676 (Ch) highlights some of the problems. Continue reading
-
Recovering penalties from directors and employees: Safeway revisited
Can a company which has been fined for anticompetitive conduct seek to recover the fine from the directors and employees responsible by suing them for damages? The question is moot in light of last week’s Supreme Court judgment in Jetivia SA and another v Bilta Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which casts… Continue reading
-
Eurotunnel: when buying assets is a merger
When is an asset acquisition a merger? As the Eurotunnel litigation shows, the answer is not clear-cut. The background is the 2011 liquidation of the cross-channel ferry company SeaFrance. It could not be sold as a going concern, so instead there was an asset sale. Eurotunnel bought three ferries and various other assets including the… Continue reading
-
The costs of intervening
There is an interesting little point on costs buried away in last week’s decision in the “Ethernet” disputes in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (see BT plc v Cable & Wireless Worldwide Plc and others [2014] CAT 20). Parties which intervene in CAT proceedings generally know that they are unlikely to recover their costs, even if they intervene in support of the… Continue reading
-
Skyscanner: CAT quashes commitments in the online booking sector
In a judgment handed down on Friday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has quashed the Office of Fair Trading’s decision to accept commitments in the online hotel booking sector. As the first case to consider such commitments, Skyscanner Ltd v CMA [2014] CAT 16 contains some helpful guidance, albeit that Skyscanner’s success actually hinged on a… Continue reading
-
The English law of causation and the passing-on defence
One of the big questions of English competition law is whether there is such a thing as a “passing-on defence” – – i.e. whether the damages suffered by a purchaser of a cartelized product are reduced or mitigated if he “passes on” some of the overcharge to his own customers. Two follow-on damages actions were… Continue reading
-
Non-Appealing Cartelists Beware
Tucked away at the back of last week’s Supreme Court decision on time-limits for follow-on claims is a very important development for private competition actions. The context is section 47A of the Competition Act 1998, a provision which has generated an extraordinary amount of litigation in view of the fact that it was intended to… Continue reading
-
Tobacco decision: the Court of Appeal emphasises finality
The Court of Appeal yesterday delivered a judgment that should finally draw a line under one of the Office of Fair Trading’s more troublesome cases – and which will presumably bring a great sigh of relief from the Competition and Markets Authority, the body that has now taken over the OFT’s functions. Continue reading
-
“Unfair advantage” under the Trade Marks Directive
Readers over the age of 24 do not fall into Jack Wills’ core target market, and may therefore be unfamiliar with the clothing brand’s “Mr Wills” pheasant logo: On the other hand, those readers who are Jack Wills devotees may want to check when you get home that you have not got confused and accidentally… Continue reading
-
Competition round-up: January 2014
It is again time for a round-up of recent competition law developments which have caught our attention. Most attention-grabbing of all was the European Commission’s genius/bizarre/inexplicable decision to publish a comic book which is probably best described as a bureaucrat’s fantasy. A young Commission official (Thomas) starts talking to a beautiful woman (Chloe) in an… Continue reading
-
Canadian Supreme Court: No such thing as passing on defence
On Thursday last week the Supreme Court of Canada handed down three much-anticipated judgments concerning indirect purchaser claims. The trio of cases point towards a distinctive, and in many respects more claimant-friendly, approach to class actions than that adopted in the US. They will therefore be essential reading for those preparing for the proposed new… Continue reading
-
Blackstone Chambers named EU and Competition Law Chambers of the Year
We do not normally use this blog for promotional purposes, but we thought we would make an exception to say that Legal 500 announced this morning that Blackstone Chambers is the winner of its inaugural award for Chambers of the Year in EU and Competition Law. Thinking that I might give our readers a flavour of… Continue reading
-
Agreements based on Libor are not void (Phew!)
This week has brought further news on the Libor interest rate fixing saga, with UK broker ICAP receiving an $87m fine. However, whilst the media spotlight remains on the worldwide regulatory and criminal proceedings, a large number of potential claimants are waiting in the wings to bring private damages claims against those responsible for fixing… Continue reading
-
Competition round-up: Summer 2013
It is time for what has become the Competition Bulletin’s regular half-yearly update of EU and UK competition law developments. (For our previous round-ups see here). Thinking big Continue reading
-
The Competition Commission’s power to block transactions outside the UK
The judgment in Akzo Nobel NV v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 13 is an important decision on the ability of the Competition Commission (“CC”) to block transactions between companies outside of the UK. However, neither party to the appeal will be entirely happy with the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (“CAT”) legal analysis. There must therefore be… Continue reading
-
UK government proposes “streamlining” regulatory and competition appeals
The UK government on Wednesday published a consultation on streamlining regulatory and competition appeals. The press spin was that the proposals are all about preventing “armies of lawyers” from blocking consumer-friendly measures. In reality, although it is true that the proposals are designed in part to put a lid on litigation, the consultation contains a… Continue reading
-
Private enforcement: the Commission speaks at last
The trio of documents published by the Commission last week mark an important moment in private competition enforcement in the EU. After years of debate and consultation, it is now clear that, whilst the Commission is determined to take some important steps to assist claimants in private actions, it is not prepared to bring about… Continue reading
Newsletter
About
This blog is produced by a group of barristers at Blackstone Chambers and is edited by Tristan Jones, Tom Coates and Flora Robertson.
We hope to spark debate, and encourage all readers to leave comments on the site.
If you have queries for Blackstone Chambers you will find the appropriate contact details here.
COMPETITION BULLETIN 