Private competition litigation is continuing to develop in the United Kingdom. The courts and the Competition Appeal Tribunal are seeing an increase in the number and complexity of follow-on damages actions, often between foreign claimants and/or defendants. In addition, an increasing number of “standalone” competition disputes between private parties are being brought in the courts,…

In competition investigations, competition authorities receive substantial amounts of confidential business information, some of which will be commercially very sensitive. This information may be used in economic modelling or otherwise be used by the authority to identify anti-competitive conduct, effects or market structures. Some information may be exculpatory. In a recent judgment (BMI Healthcare and…

On 9 August 2013, the OFT issued draft commitments in the Hotel Online Booking investigation.  The OFT has investigated the relevant markets for over 2 years and has provisionally found that certain hotels were restricting the ability of their distributors to offer consumers discounts on standard rates for hotel rooms.  The case raises interesting questions…

On 21st December 2012, the Supreme Court granted permission to Morgan Crucible to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered in July, concerning the time limits for bringing follow-on claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Court of Appeal’s Judgment By its judgment the Court of Appeal shed light on the limitation…

On 19 November 2012, the OFT appointed Lee Craddock, a former police officer and case manager at the Serious Fraud Office, as Director of Investigations and Criminal Enforcement.  His appointment follows the disastrous handling of the criminal price fixing case against British Airways (BA) executives in 2010, one of only two prosecutions of the cartel…

In early July this year, the UK’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”), adopted a judgment (“Judgment”) in which it awarded a claimant (2 Travel) exemplary damages in relation to predatory pricing abuses engaged in by its dominant rival, Cardiff Bus.1)2 Travel Group PLC (in liquidation) v Cardiff City Transport Services Limited {2012}…

The Office of Fair Trading’s (“OFT”) long-running Dairy investigation has been plagued by controversies right from the outset.  Allegations have been made by the OFT and subsequently withdrawn, the scope of the investigation has been progressively narrowed and the OFT has even had to pay Morrisons £100,000 to settle a libel claim.   Against this backdrop,…

In 2007, the European Commission prohibited Ryanair’s attempted hostile bid to acquire rival Irish airline, Aer Lingus. It also refused to order Ryanair to divest its 29.8% stake in Aer Lingus, which it had built up during its aborted public bid. The General Court later upheld both the prohibition of the merger and the refusal to require divestment of the minority shareholding. Subsequently, the UK Office of Fair Trading investigated Ryanair’s minority shareholding in Aer Lingus; Ryanair’s challenges to the OFT’s jurisdiction were rejected by both the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. On 1 June the Supreme Court refused Ryanair leave to appeal, thus confirming the OFT’s ability to investigate the transaction, which it referred to the Competition Commission on 15 June. However, immediately thereafter, Ryanair launched a third hostile bid to acquire Aer Lingus, leading to further litigation before the CAT to challenge the Competition Commission’s jurisdiction.
This blog post examines the complex interaction of European Commission and national authority jurisdiction to examine different transactions involving the same parties, as well as the OFT’s reasons for referring Ryanair’s minority shareholding to the Competition Commission.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has upheld the Competition Commission’s decision to require Stericycle to divest the entirety of Ecowaste Southwest following its prohibition of the completed merger. In dismissing Stericycle’s appeal, the Tribunal confirmed that the Commission is not obliged to identify of its own motion all possible remedies, but merely those that would clearly resolve the harm to competition caused by the merger. It also held that, in a completed merger, the purchaser takes the risk of being required to divest the entire business acquired by it, if this is necessary to restore effective competition.