Tom Richards
-
Blown out of the water? Air Cargo and the future of extra-EU/EEA cartel damages claims
If the captain of a trading ship fires cannon on a canoe to prevent the canoeists trading with another boat vying for their trade, that boat’s owners can sue the captain: Tarleton v M’Gawley (1793) Peake 270. An intention to gain where your gain must be another’s loss is an intention to injure the other… Continue reading
-
What’s the plot? Conspiracy and 19th Century comic opera (again)
Ever since Johnson v Moreton [1980] AC 37 (61E-G per Lord Hailsham: ‘we should have to adopt the carefree attitude of the Mikado…’), references to Gilbert and Sullivan have been gaining ground in the judgments of our higher Courts. When last year Arden LJ rejected the argument, advanced by the claimant victim of a cartel,… Continue reading
-
Dogma in telecoms, cream for the CAT: 08- numbers in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down judgment in British Telecommunications plc v Telefónica O2 UK Ltd & Ors [2014] UKSC 42. Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal (blogged on here by Emily Neill), Lord Sumption for a unanimous Supreme Court held that there had been no basis for Ofcom to disallow BT’s introduction… Continue reading
Access Directive, Article 20, Article 5, Article 8, call termination, CAT, competition appeal tribunal, contract, Court of Appeal, Directive 2002/19/EC, Directive 2002/21/EC, dispute resolution, disputes, Framework Directive, interconnection, Lord Sumption, s. 185, s. 192, section 185, section 192, supreme court, telecoms -
Murphy and pay-TV: an update
A version of the blog post below was first published on the Blackstone Chambers sports law blog: http://sportslawbulletin.org/. Back in November I blogged on a Financial Times report that the European Commission was about to commence an antitrust investigation into pay-TV services. That investigation was formally announced last Monday, in a statement by Joaquín Almunia,… Continue reading
-
Murphy, round 2: does exclusive territorial licensing of pay-TV breach EU competition law?
According to a report in the Financial Times last weekend, the European Commission is on the verge of commencing a formal investigation into potentially anti-competitive restrictions in pay-TV licensing arrangements. Such an investigation could have significant ramifications for any owners of television rights in sports fixtures (or other content) who seek to maximise their revenues… Continue reading
-
Curtains for the French Blocking Statute?
Never the most celebrated actor on the stage of English litigation, the French Blocking Statute nonetheless has its fans, particularly among competition lawyers. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories [2013] EWCA Civ 1234, however, may prove the Statute’s final curtain call in this jurisdiction.… Continue reading
-
Update – more cats in bags
Further to my post this morning, the CAT’s website has just been updated with a new judgment on confidentiality, Ryanair Holdings plc v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 25. The Tribunal has ruled, in the context of a challenge to the CC’s decision requiring Ryanair to divest itself of the large part of its minority stake… Continue reading
-
Cats, bags, rings and rooms: the problem of confidentiality
Dealing with confidential information in competition cases can be tricky. The CAT’s recent judgment in BMI Healthcare and others v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 241 provides some help. The core problem of confidentiality in the context of competition law is that many of the arguments deployed by litigants and regulators rely upon information which is… Continue reading
-
Conspiracy in the CAT: the scope of section 47A
What kinds of “follow-on” claims may be brought in the CAT? ‘[A]ny claim for damages, or any other claim for a sum of money which a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the infringement of a relevant prohibition may make in civil proceedings brought in any part of the United… Continue reading
-
Down the rabbit-hole: costs, the Comms Act and the Competition Commission
‘“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here”.’ Where an appeal to the Tribunal under section 192 of the Communications Act 2003 gives rise to specified ‘price control matters’, the CAT must hive them off for determination by the Competition… Continue reading
-
Special pleading? Toshiba Carrier and the industrial tubes cartel
The Court of Appeal’s judgment last Friday in KME Yorkshire Ltd & ors v Toshiba Carrier UK Ltd & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1990 will gladden the hearts of Article 101 damages claimants. It confirms that the Court will be generous in assessing the adequacy of a claimant’s pleaded case – at least where a… Continue reading
-
Cardiff bust-up: abuse of dominance, follow-on claims and exemplary damages
In 2 Travel Group PLC (in liquidation) v Cardiff City Transport Services Limited [2012] CAT 19 the Tribunal has made the first ever domestic award of exemplary damages for breach of competition law. The case is a significant landmark, but involves no radical development of the law; it is certainly not a declaration of “open… 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 