-
The Freight-Forwarding Cartels in the General Court: Lessons on Leniency and Discretion
On 29 February 2016, the General Court handed down its judgments in Case T-265/12 Schenker Ltd v European Commission; Case T-267/12 Deutsche Bahn AG and ors v European Commission, upholding the Commission’s decision on the freight forwarding cartels. The judgments provide some useful guidance on the operation of the leniency scheme and highlight the Commission’s… Continue reading
-
Illegal counterfactuals: bringing in new claims by the backdoor?
It is fairly well-established in competition cases that the hypothetical counterfactual – which, for the purposes of causation, posits what the situation would have been absent any breach of competition law – cannot contain unlawful elements: see e.g. Albion Water Ltd v Dwr Cymru [2013] CAT 6. In a normal case, C will claim damages,… Continue reading
-
FIFPro challenge the football transfer system
By Nick De Marco & Dr Alex Mills As the curtains are drawn on the panic-buying of the January transfer window for another year, it is once again difficult not to reflect critically on the football transfer system. In the Premier League alone, more than £1bn has been spent on football transfers during the 2015-16… 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
-
Eligibility for sporting competitions caught in the cross-hairs of competition law
In a recent announcement, the European Commission got its skates on and launched an investigation into the rules of the International Skating Union (ISU) which preclude skaters from taking part in events which have not been approved by the ISU. The announcement is only preliminary and does not represent a statement of what may or… Continue reading
-
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
-
Appealing energy price controls: guidance for beginners from the CMA
The CMA recently published its final determinations in two appeals brought by British Gas and Northern Powergrid against Ofgem’s electricity price controls for the next 8 years (decisions here and here). The appeals were the first under section 11C of the Electricity Act 1989 and the CMA’s decisions will therefore be the first port of… Continue reading
-
PRIVATE ACTIONS: The CRA 2015 giveth; and the 2015 CAT Rules taketh away
Introduction Today, on the 1st October 2015, when we are supposed to be celebrating the brave new world of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA”) as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), cartelists and other competition law infringers up and down the land[1] must be rubbing their hands in glee at the transitional provisions… Continue reading
-
When should a decision be remitted to a different decision-maker?
The Court of Appeal’s answer to this question in HCA International Limited v CMA [2015] EWCA Civ 492 was, in effect: rarely. The judgment, which contains some serious criticism of the CMA even though it won the case, illustrates just how high the threshold is before a court will insist that a remitted decision should… Continue reading
-
Arcadia v Visa revisited: the Court of Appeal takes a strict approach to limitation
Competition damages claims can be notoriously complex. According to the Court of Appeal, however, that is no reason to free them from the ordinary English rules of limitation – however strict those rules might be. Unlike the large majority of European limitation rules, where time starts running from the date of the victim’s knowledge, the… Continue reading
-
Jurisdiction in competition damages actions: a first word from the CJEU
C-352/13 Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide was the CJEU’s first judgment on the application of the Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) to competition damages claims. The case fell to be decided in the context of the EU’s various new measures to encourage private enforcement. The Advocate General was not convinced that this policy focus could… 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
-
Of Megabytes and Men: the private use exception under the judicial lens and lessons for state aid claims
On 19 June 2015, the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review against the decision to introduce a narrow ‘private copying’ exception to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the “CDPA 1988”). The decision is of interest to EU and competition lawyers for two reasons: (1) its examination of the standard of review… 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
-
Fresh grounds and evidence before the CAT
On the face of it, BT was the main winner in this week’s ruling from the Competition Appeal Tribunal: see British Telecommunications plc v Office of Communications [2015] CAT 6. However, the decision, which makes interesting comments on the rights of parties to adduce new grounds and evidence on an appeal, raises important notes of… Continue reading
-
The ECJ on the Bus Lane Wars
Minicab giant Addison Lee recently suffered another defeat in the latest battle in the bus lane wars – this time at the ECJ. The outcome is no great surprise, but the Court’s approach to the question of when inter-state trade is affected is likely to be of broader interest. Continue reading
-
Gallaher and Somerfield: will the CMA change its approach to settlement?
The latest episode in the tobacco litigation saga has seen Gallaher and Somerfield’s attempt to benefit from the collapse of the OFT’s case in November 2011 rejected by the High Court in R (Gallaher Group Limited and Ors) v Competition and Markets Authority [2015] EWHC 84 (Admin). Although the CMA will breathe a sigh of… 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
-
Applying interest in damages claims
The Competition Bulletin is pleased to welcome the latest in our series of blogs by Oxera Consulting on key economic concepts for competition lawyers. In this blog, Enno Eilts, a Senior Consultant, discusses issues connected with the calculation of interest in damages actions. 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
-
“It’s too late baby, now it’s too late”: limitation, competition claims and knowledge
How much knowledge does a potential claimant need before time begins to run against a competition claim against a party alleged to have breached competition law? This was the key question addressed by Mr Justice Simon in the first case in which an English Court has had to consider the effect of s.32 of the… Continue reading
-
High Court tests the limits of confidentiality in EC infringement decisions
The European Commission came in for some stern criticism from the High Court this week, in a case which looks set to test the boundaries of confidentiality in EC infringement decisions: see Emerald Supplies v BA [2014] EWHC 3515 (Ch). The background is the 2010 EC decision fining BA and eleven other airlines a total of €800m… Continue reading
-
Competition law and public services: insights from the OFT report into higher education
Recent public sector reforms have relied on choice and competition to increase the quality and quantity of service provision, whilst also controlling cost, through a programme known as Open Public Services. The use of choice and competition gives rise to public service markets, and ensuring that these markets function effectively is one of the Competition… 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
-
MasterCard miffed as CJEU dismisses appeal
Yesterday’s CJEU judgment in the MasterCard case is a major defeat for a company which faces a huge number of private damages actions from retailers. The judgment also examines some interesting legal points, including in particular relating to the use of “counterfactuals” in competition cases. Continue reading
-
The Cost of Collusion
The Competition Bulletin is pleased to welcome a guest blog from Louise Freeman of King & Wood Mallesons LLP. Louise specialises in (among other things) complex competition litigation. In this blog, she addresses the implications of the recent CJEU decision in Case C‑557/12 Kone AG and others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG. 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
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 