Koninklijke Philips and Philips France v Commission: ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Smart card chips – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Exchange of commercially sensitive information – Infringement by object – Single and continuous infringement – Principle of sound administration – Duty of care – Proof – 2006 Leniency Notice – Settlement Notice – Limitation period – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Value of sales

ECLI:EU:T:2016:738, [2016] EUECJ T-762/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572603

Printeos and Others v Commission: ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Coordination of sales prices and allocation of customers – Settlement procedure – Fines – Basic amount – Exceptional adjustment – Maximum of 10% of total turnover – Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Obligation to state reasons – Equal treatment

ECLI:EU:T:2016:722, [2016] EUECJ T-95/15
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572604

Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht v Adriaensen and Others: ECJ 15 Dec 2016

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Misleading commercial practice – Pyramid promotional scheme – Contributions paid by new members and compensation received by existing members – Indirect financial link

ECLI:EU:C:2016:958, [2016] EUECJ C-667/15
Bailii
Directive 2005/29/EC
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572598

Nemec v Republika Slovenija: ECJ 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2000/35/EC – Combating late payment – Jurisdiction of the Court – Transaction concluded before the accession of the Republic of Slovenia to the European Union – Scope – Concept of ‘commercial transaction’ – Concept of ‘undertaking’ – Maximum amount of interest for late payment

ECLI:EU:C:2016:954, [2016] EUECJ C-256/15
Bailii
Directive 2000/35/EC
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572599

Infineon Technologies AG v Commission: ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Smart card chips – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Exchanges of commercially sensitive information – Rights of defence – Infringement by object – Proof – Limitation – Single and continuous infringement – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Value of sales

ECLI:EU:T:2016:737, [2016] EUECJ T-758/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572586

Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sarl: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction – Matters relating to delict or quasi-delict – Selective distribution network – Resale outside a network on the Internet – Action for cessation of the wrongful act – Related Link

C-618/15, [2016] EUECJ C-618/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572574

Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport): ECJ 14 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public service contracts – Directive 2004/18/EC – Article 45(2) – Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer – Optional grounds of exclusion – Grave professional misconduct – National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality – Decisions of the contracting authorities – Directive 89/665/EEC – Judicial review

[2016] WLR(D) 672, [2016] EUECJ C-171/15
Bailii, WLRD
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572575

Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Commission: ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Greek markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity – Decision introducing specific measures to remedy the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86 (1) EC, read in In conjunction with Article 82 EC – Article 86 (3) EC – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality – Freedom of contract

ECLI:EU:T:2016:748, [2016] EUECJ T-421/09
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572577

Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebaudebetreuung und Caverion Osterreich: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 89/665 / EEC – Recourse procedures for the award of public contracts – Article 1 (3) – Interest in bringing proceedings – Article 2a (2) – Concept of ‘tenderer concerned’ Of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority from bringing an action against the subsequent decision to award the contract

C-355/15, [2016] EUECJ C-355/15
Bailii
European

Commercial, Administrative

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572566

Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission: ECJ 3 Sep 2009

ECJ Judgment – Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices European haberdashery market (needles) Market sharing agreements Infringement of the rights of the defence Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based Fine Guidelines Gravity of the infringement Actual impact on the market Implementation of the cartel

[2009] EUECJ C-534/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:505
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionPrym and Prym Consumer v Commission ECJ 30-Apr-2009
ECJ (Competition) – Opinion – Competition Appeal Entente European market for haberdashery and needle market-sharing agreements Violation of the rights of defense Obligation to state reasons Guidelines on Fines . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572402

Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona: ECJ 8 Dec 2016

EU (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public service contracts – Award of the contract without initiating a tendering procedure – So-called ‘in-house’ award – Conditions – Similar control – Performance of the essential activity – Successful public capital tendering company owned by several local authorities – Activity also carried out for the benefit of local authorities which are not shareholders – Activity imposed by a public authority which is not a shareholder

C-553/15, [2016] EUECJ C-553/15
Bailii
European

Administrative, Commercial

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572326

Commission v France And Orange C-486/15: ECJ 30 Nov 2016

Judgment – Appeal – State aid – Financial measures for France Telecom – Shareholder loan offer – Public statements by representatives of the French State – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Definition of ‘aid’ – Concept of ‘economic advantage’ – Prudent private investor criterion – Obligation of the General Court to state reasons – Limits of judicial review – Distortion of the decision at issue

ECLI:EU:C:2016:912, [2016] EUECJ C-486/15
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571973

Spinosa Costruzioni Generali and Melfi: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Order) Preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Public procurement – Directive 2004/18 / EC – Directive 2014/24 / EU – Participation in tenders – Bidder that failed to mention in the offer loads business for safety – praetorian must bear this mention – market Exclusion no opportunity to correct this omission

ECLI:EU:C:2016:870, [2016] EUECJ C-162/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571885

EDRA Costruzioni and Edilfac v Comune di Maiolati Spontini: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Order) Preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Public procurement – Directive 2004/18 / EC – Directive 2014/24 / EU – Participation in tenders – Bidder that failed to mention in the offer loads business for safety – praetorian must bear this mention – market Exclusion no opportunity to correct this omission

ECLI:EU:C:2016:868, [2016] EUECJ C-140/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571874

MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna: ECJ 15 Nov 2016

ECJ (Order) Preliminary reference – commercial policy – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Article 13 – Circumvention – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 – Fabrics fiber open mesh glass originating in the People’s Republic of China – anti-dumping duties – implementing Regulations (EU) No 437/2012 and (EU) No 21/2013 – shipped from Thailand – Extension of anti-dumping duty – temporal scope – Community Customs Code – subsequent recovery of import duties

C-222/16, [2016] EUECJ C-222/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571879

MB Srl v Societa Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

(Order) Preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Public procurement – Directive 2004/18 / EC – Directive 2014/24 / EU – Participation in tenders – Bidder that failed to mention in the offer loads business for safety – praetorian must bear this mention – market Exclusion no opportunity to correct this omission

ECLI:EU:C:2016:867, [2016] EUECJ C-697/15 – CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571878

Tele2 International Card Company Sa and others v Post Office Ltd: QBD 25 Feb 2008

[2008] EWHC 158 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTele2 International Card Company Sa and others v Post Office Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Appeal against rejection of claim for novation of contract.
Held: Aikens LJ summarised the analysis by Lord Goff of the principles of affirmation by election in Kanchenjunga as follows: ‘i) If a contract gives a party a right to terminate upon . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.266047

Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jun 2000

Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent’s services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a secondary agent or not was a question foreign to English law, and not to be gleaned other than through the Regulations and the facts. If the agents are not secondary, they are within the Regulations. Here the respondent would derive a long term benefit from their activities, and they were not secondary.
Morison J reviewed the genesis of the Directive and made reference to Law Commission Report No 84, 1977 which said: ‘The provisions of the Directive were clearly based upon the German Commercial Code and related to a special category of agent who acted for his principal ‘who must be his standing client’. In German law the commercial agent is ‘identifiable as a member of a particular social group with special social and economic needs’. Such an agent was a quasi employee requiring protection from exploitation’.

Morison J
Times 27-Jun-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000, [2000] EuLR 708, [2000] CLC 1397
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIngmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Inc QBD 31-Jul-2001
The applicants sought damages as commercial agents following the termination of their exclusive agency for the sale of the respondents goods in the UK. The defendants claimed the contract was governed exclusively by Californian law. The European . .
CitedRossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89699

Orange v Commission: ECJ 26 Oct 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Competition – State aid – Aid granted by the French Republic to France Telecom – Reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Telecom – Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Telecom – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions – Definition of aid – Definition of economic advantage – Selective nature – Adverse effect on competition – Distortion of the facts – No statement of reasons – Substitution of grounds

ECLI:EU:C:2016:798, [2016] EUECJ C-211/15
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570589

Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority: CA 10 Jul 2015

The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but the court now considered interim arrangements.

Arden, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
[2015] EWCA Civ 768
Bailii
Enterprise Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoThe Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal) CAT 20-Jan-2015
. .
CitedSociete Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v Competition and Markets Authority CA 15-May-2015
The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of . .
See AlsoGroupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .
See AlsoGroupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
See AlsoGroupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-Jan-2015
Judgment . .

Cited by:
See AlsoSociete Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.550499

Etablissements Fr. Colruyt: ECJ 21 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2011/64/EU – Article 15(1) – Free determination, by the manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of manufactured tobacco products – National regulation prohibiting the sale of such products by retailers at prices lower than those indicated on the revenue stamp – Free movement of goods – Article 34 TFEU – Selling arrangements – Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU

ECLI:EU:C:2016:704, [2016] EUECJ C-221/15
Bailii
Directive 2011/64/EU
European

Commercial

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569503

Commission v Czech Republic C-525/14: ECJ 22 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of goods – Article 34 TFEU – Quantitative restrictions on imports – Measures having equivalent effect – Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation – Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation – Refusal to recognise the hallmark – Consumer protection – Proportionality – Admissibility

ECLI:EU:C:2016:714, [2016] EUECJ C-525/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569498

Trafilerie Meridionali v Commission: ECJ 14 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European prestressing steel market – Fines – Setting of the fines – 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines – Point 35 – Unlimited jurisdiction – Obligation to state reasons – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time

ECLI:EU:C:2016:682, [2016] EUECJ C-519/15
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569387

Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission: ECFI 8 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram – Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ – Potential competition – Generic medicinal products – Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents – Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking – Duration of the Commission’s investigation – Rights of the defence – Fines – Legal certainty – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)

ECLI:EU:T:2016:460, [2016] EUECJ T-471/13
Bailii
European

European, Commercial

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569390

Generics (UK) v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 8 Sep 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram – Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ – Potential competition – Generic medicinal products – Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents – Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking – Error of law – Error of assessment – Rights of defence – Fines

ECLI:EU:T:2016:454, [2016] EUECJ T-469/13
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569058

Goldfish and Others v Commission (Judgment) French Text: ECFI 8 Sep 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Belgian, Dutch, French and Dutch markets for shrimps in the North Sea – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing and allocation of sales volumes – Admissibility of evidence – Use as Evidence of secret recordings of telephone conversations – Appraisal of contributory capacity – Full jurisdiction

T-54/14, [2016] EUECJ T-54/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569059

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries And Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission: ECFI 8 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram – Concept of restriction of competition by object – Potential competition – Generic medicinal products – Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents – Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking – Fines – Legal certainty – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Duration of the Commission’s investigation

T-460/13, [2016] EUECJ T-460/13, ECLI:EU:T:2016:453
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569063

Gazdasagi Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Osterreich: ECJ 28 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Scope ratione materiae – Recovery of sum not due – Unjust enrichment – Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law

ECLI:EU:C:2016:607, [2016] EUECJ C-102/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
European

Commercial, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567790

Bailey and Another v Angove’s Pty Ltd: SC 27 Jul 2016

The defendant had agreed to act as the claimant’s agent and distributor of the claimant’s wines in the UK. It acted both as agent and also bought wines on its own account. When the defendant went into litigation the parties disputed the right of the defedant to collect outstanding siums. The court was asked two questions: ‘The first is: in what circumstances will the law treat the authority of an agent as irrevocable. The other is whether the receipt of money at a time when the recipient knows that imminent insolvency will prevent him from performing the corresponding obligation, can give rise to liability to account as a constructive trustee.’ At first instance the court had decided that the authority to collect sums was revoked upon service of the notice terminaing the agreement, but the Court of Appeal decided in its favour.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The agent;s authority was determined imediately. It did not have sufficient interest under the contract to have authority to collect the unpaid sales invoices.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 47, UKSC 2014/0106, [2016] WLR(D) 455, [2016] 1 WLR 3179
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summ Vid, WLRD
Powers of Attorney Act 1971 4(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instanceBailey and Another v Angove’s PTY Limited ChD 2013
The liquidator of the company sought a declaration that sums received by the defendant sales agents on behalf of the insolvent company were to be paid out to the liquidators in full. The court was asked whether the payments by DWL and PLB made after . .
CitedWalsh v Whitcomb 1797
Lord Kenyon said that powers of attorney are ‘revocable from their nature’. . .
CitedSmart and another v Sandars and Others CCP 12-May-1848
A factor to whom goods have been consigned generally for sale, and who has subsequently made advances to his principal on the credit of the goods, has no right to sell them, contrary to the orders of his principal, on the latter neglecting, on . .
CitedGaussen And Others v W Morton And E Morton 7-May-1830
A. being indebted to B, in order to discharge the debt executed to B a power of attorney, authorising him to sell certain lands belonging to him, A.: Held, that this, being an authority coupled with an interest could not be revoked. . .
CitedDe Comas v Prost and Kohler PC 13-Mar-1865
New South Wales . .
CitedDoward, Dickson and Co v Williams and Co 1890
Where an agent’s only interest is a commercial interest in being able to earn his commission, his power of attorney is not secured and is revocable, because the authority is not properly speaking a security at all. . .
Cited(In re Hannan’s Empress Gold Mining and Development Co (Carmichael’s Case) 1896
A power of attorney was held to be irrevocable when conferred on the promoter of a public share offering to subscribe for shares . .
CitedVan Praagh v Everidge ChD 1902
A power of attorney conferred by a bidder on an auctioneer of land to execute the memorandum of sale if it is knocked down to him was held to be irrevocable . .
CitedFrith v Frith PC 21-Mar-1906
Turks and Caicos Islands – A manager sought to claim that the power of attorney, which authorised him to enter into possession of and manage an estate in the Turks and Caicos Islands, and to receive rents and profits and pay debts due by the owners, . .
CitedTemple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd CA 6-Apr-2009
‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be . .
Appeal fromBailey and Another v Angove’s Pty Ltd CA 7-Mar-2014
The parties disputed the payment out of sums held by the company’s liquidators under an undertaking given by them. Their case was that if DandD (agents for the insolvent company) acted in the relevant respects as agents, their authority to collect . .
CitedDaly v Lime Street Underwriting Agencies 1987
A name at Lloyds confers an irrevocable power of attorney on his managing agent to underwrite business. . .
CitedSociety of Lloyd’s v D Leighs and Others; Society of Lloyd’s v D Wilkinson and Others ComC 20-Feb-1997
ComC Lloyd’s Litigation – issues relating to recovery from names.
Held: A name at Lloyd’s grants a power of attorney to the underwriting agent to execute that power which is irrevocable. . .
CitedBarclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
CitedLord Napier and Ettrick and Another v Hunter and Others; Same v R F Kershaw Ltd HL 3-Mar-1993
Certain insureds sought recovery of a sum which was greater than the sum which had been paid to them by their insurers. The insureds had claimed first on the policies of insurance. Their claims had been met. The insureds then pursued an action in . .
CitedChase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd 1981
Goulding J approved the statement in Story’s Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence: ‘the receiving of money which consistently with conscience cannot be retained is, in equity, sufficient to raise a trust in favour of the party for whom or on whose . .
Not justifiedNeste Oy v Lloyd’s Bank Plc ChD 1983
A shipping agent (PSL), a client of the defendant, had become insolvent. The defendant sought to combine the accounts. PSL settled on behalf of their shipowner clients bills payable to harbour authorities, pilots, fuel merchants, and other providers . .
CitedWestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
Wrongy decidedJapan Leasing (Europe) Plc v Shoa Leasing (Singapore) PTE Ltd ChD 30-Jul-1999
The court considered a hire purchase agreement for an aircraft between four leasing companies and Olympic Airways. The contract documentation provided for the payment of the price in instalments to designated accounts in various currencies of one of . .
CitedIbrahim v Barclays Bank Plc and Another CA 16-May-2012
The court was asked whether a debtor’s liability to his creditor is discharged when the creditor recovers an equivalent amount to the debt from a bank that has provided a standby letter of credit.
Held: they were entitled at common law to . .
CitedFHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Commercial

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567604

VM Remonts And Others v Konkurences padome and Others: ECJ 21 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 101(1) TFEU – Purely internal situation – Application of analogous national rules – Jurisdiction of the Court – Concerted practice – Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider – Conditions

T von Danwitz, P
C-542/14, [2016] EUECJ C-542/14, [2016] WLR(D) 410, ECLI:EU:C:2016:578
Bailii, WLRD
TFEU 101(1)

European, Commercial

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567419

National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc v ABB Ltd and Others: ChD 11 Apr 2013

The claimant sought damages after alleging activities of an anti-competitive cartel operated by the several defendants. The court considered the effect of the French law providing potentially substantial follow-on damages for such activities.

Roth J
[2013] EWHC 822 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

European, Commercial

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.472543

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller and Co Margarine: HL 1901

The House considered the liability, or not, to stamp duty of an agreement made in the UK. Under the Stamp Act 1891 an agreement made in the UK for the sale of any estate or interest in any property except lands or property locally situate out of the UK was chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty. The particular agreement was for the sale of the premises of a wholesale manufacturing business which was carried on in Germany together with the goodwill of the business, all of whose customers were in Germany.
Held: The goodwill was property locally situate outside the UK.
Lord Macnaghten said: ‘It is very difficult, as it seems to me, to say that goodwill is not property. Goodwill is bought and sold every day. It may be acquired, I think, in any of the different ways in which property is usually acquired. When a man has got it he may keep it as his own. He may vindicate his exclusive right to it if necessary by process of law. He may dispose of it if he will – of course under the conditions attaching to property of that nature.’ and
‘What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of a good name, reputation, and connection of business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old established business from a new business at its first start. The goodwill of a business must emanate from a particular centre or source. However widely extended or diffused its influence may be, goodwill is worth nothing unless it has a power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates. Goodwill is composed of a variety of elements. It differs in its composition in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade.’
Lord Lindley said: ‘Goodwill regarded as property has no meaning except in connection with some trade, business, or calling. In that connection, I understand the word to include whatever adds value to the business by reason of the situation, name and reputation, connection, introduction to old customers, and agreed absence from competition, or any of these things, and there may be others which do not occur to me. In this wide sense, goodwill is inseparable from the business to which it adds value, and, in my opinion, exists where the business is carried on. Such business may be carried on in one place or country or in several, and if in several there may be several businesses, each having a goodwill of its own.’
Lord Robertson said: ‘I do not accede to the view that the goodwill is affixed or attached to the manufactory. Supposing that the products of the manufactory were all exported to England and sold to English customers, I should find it difficult to hold that the goodwill was out of England merely because the manufactory was. The application of the words ‘locally situate’ would then present a different question, requiring, I should think, a different answer. Again, if the facts as to the distribution of the products were more complicated, as, for example, if the trade were diffused over England and other countries, then the location of the goodwill would be a more complex, although I do not by any means think an insoluble, problem.
I confess I find no repugnancy in affirming of the goodwill of a business that it is locally situate somewhere. It is, I should say, locally situate within the geographical limits which comprehend the seat of the trade, and the trade. That sounds like a very cautious statement, and fortunately it is enough for the present question. It seems to me that in the statute the distinction drawn is between what from a British point of view we should call British property and foreign property; and the goodwill of a business which begins and ends abroad is, I think, property locally situate outside the United Kingdom.’

Lord Macnaghten, Lord Lindley, Lord Robertson
[1901] AC 217
Stamp Act 1891
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCondliffe and Another v Sheingold CA 31-Oct-2007
The defendant had taken an assignment of the goodwill of a restaurant from the company of which she was a director. The plaintiffs as assignees of any claims of the company, now in liquidation, said that she was liable to account to them for the . .
CitedHotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-2010
The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the . .
CitedThe Athletes’ Foot Marketing Associates Inc v Cobra Sports Ltd ChD 1980
The plaintiff, which carried on a retail shoe franchising business mainly in the United States, had prospective franchisee in England but had not commenced trading there. There was an awareness in England of the plaintiff’s trade name and activities . .
CitedStarbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Intellectual Property, Stamp Duty

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.260189

Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others: HL 27 Mar 2001

The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a demand. An assertion of a formal right was required. A person to whom a bill of lading had been endorsed, ceased to be liable on it when he successfully endorsed it again to someone else.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 27-Mar-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] UKHL 17, [2001] 2 All ER 193, [2002] 2 AC 205
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 3(1), Bills of Lading Act 1855
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBorealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
The holder of a bill of lading became liable upon completing any one of some initial steps, and retained that liability unless he actually took delivery. He remained liable until the bill was endorsed to somebody else who in turn fulfilled such a . .
CitedEffort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
CitedSanders v Maclean CA 1883
‘The law as to the indorsement of bills of lading is as clear as in my opinion the practice of all European merchants is thoroughly understood. A cargo at sea is incapable of physical delivery, and a bill of lading by the law merchant is universally . .
CitedDublin City Distillery (Great Brunswick Street, Dublin) Limited and Another v Doherty HL 1914
D had advanced monies to a distillery company on the security of manufactured whisky stored in a warehouse. On the occasion of each advance, the company delivered to D an invoice and a warrant which described the particulars of the whisky and stated . .
CitedLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
CitedDawes v Peck 1799
Where there is a named consignee on a bill of lading it may be inferred that the contracting party is the consignee not the shipper. . .
CitedAlbacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
CitedBryans v Nix 1839
. .
CitedEvans v Nichol 1841
. .
CitedKum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd HL 1971
‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a . .
CitedThompson v Dominy 1845
. .
CitedGlynn Mills v E and W India Dock Co 1880
The effect of the assignment of a bill of lading on the title to the goods depends on the circumstances and the intention of the transferor and transferee. . .
CitedSewell v Burdick HL 1884
What does the word ‘property’ encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special . .
CitedCock v Taylor 1811
The carrier’s liens under a bill of lading are a qualification of the rights of the endorsee against the shipowner. . .
CitedAllen v Coltart 1883
‘Where goods are deliverable to the holder of a bill of lading on certain conditions being complied with, the act of demanding delivery is evidence of an offer on his part to comply with those conditions, and the delivery accordingly by the master . .
CitedSanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller 2-Feb-1843
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading . .
CitedStindt v Roberts 1848
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading. . .
CitedYoung v Moeller 1855
. .
CitedBrandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd CA 1924
The plaintiff claimed damages from the shipowner for negligence in the carriage of a consignment of goods. He was not able to bring himself within the terms of the 1855 Act but he succeeded on the contract to be inferred from the presentation of the . .
CitedThe Delfini 1990
. .
CitedFox v Nott 1861
. .
CitedSmurthwaite v Wilkins 1862
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. ‘Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious . .
CitedThe Aramis CA 1989
The court considered the circumstances under which a contract might be implied: ‘As the question whether or not any such contract is to be implied is one of fact, its answer must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case – and the . .
CitedIn re Wait 1927
In the case of a Bill of lading issued for quantities out of undivided consignments and where those quantities had been sold to different buyers and the various bills of lading endorsed over to them, those endorsements were ineffective to pass the . .
CitedMargarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd 1969
The practice of issuing delivery orders for parcels out of a bulk cargo were ineffective and the intended buyers were left without remedy against the carrier.
Roskill J said: ‘In my judgment, there is nothing in Hedley Byrne to affect the . .
CitedLeigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) HL 24-Apr-1985
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant’s vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the . .
CitedAegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’) AdCt 1998
The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued . .

Cited by:
Appealed toBorealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
The holder of a bill of lading became liable upon completing any one of some initial steps, and retained that liability unless he actually took delivery. He remained liable until the bill was endorsed to somebody else who in turn fulfilled such a . .
CitedScottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commercial, Contract

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.78491

Sot. Lelos Kai Sia, Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton and Others v (Competition): ECJ 16 Sep 2008

Europa Article 82 EC Abuse of dominant position Pharmaceutical products Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports Ordinary orders.

C-476/06, [2008] EUECJ C-476/06, C-468/06, C-469/06, C-470/06, C-471/06, C-472/06, C-473/06, C-474/06, C-475/06, C-476/06, C-477/06, C-478/06
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.276393

Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission: ECJ 29 Jan 2020

(Order) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Competition – Article 101 TFEU – Agreements between undertakings – Market in metal packaging – Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 – Article 2 (1) – Decision to initiate the procedure – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility – Measure not open to appeal – Effective judicial protection – Appeal, in part, clearly inadmissible and, in part, clearly unfounded

C-418/19, [2020] EUECJ C-418/19P_CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.654732

Ceske Drahy v Commission: ECJ 30 Jan 2020

(Competition – Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 20 (4) – Inspection decisions – Obligation to state reasons – Sufficiently serious evidence of the existence of an infringement of the competition rules – Evidence legally obtained – Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence from a previous inspection

C-538/18, [2020] EUECJ C-538/18P
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.654681

Moreda-Riviere Trefilerias v Commission: ECJ 17 Dec 2015

ECJ (Order) Appeal – Cartels – European prestressing steel market – Commission Decision amending the fines imposed on certain undertakings and granting a new deadline for the payment of the fines – Lack of interest in bringing other companies with fines remained unchanged – Article 181 of the Rules of procedure of the Court – Appeal manifestly unfounded

ECLI:EU:C:2015:839, [2015] EUECJ C-53/15 – CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565746

Evonik Degussa and Alzchem v Commission: ECJ 16 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Article 81 EC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area – Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information – Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries – Decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary – Rebuttable presumption in the case of a 100% shareholding – Condition for the rebuttal of that presumption – Disregard of an express instruction

ECLI:EU:C:2016:446, [2016] EUECJ C-155/14
Bailii
EC 81
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565607

Repsol Lubricantes Y Especialidades And Others v Commission: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Article 81 EC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Spanish market for penetration bitumen – Market sharing and price coordination – Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) – Final paragraph of point 23(b) – Partial immunity from fines – Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission

ECLI:EU:C:2016:416, [2016] EUECJ C-617/13
Bailii
EC Treaty 81

European, Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565631

Moreda-Riviere Trefilera SA v Commission: ECFI 2 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Cartels – European market for pre-stressing steel – Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Economic unit – Direct participation in the infringement – derivative liability of parent companies – business Succession – complex infringement – single and continuous infringement – 2006 Guidelines for the calculation of fines – Principles of non-retroactivity and legality of penalties – mitigating circumstances – Ability – Human defense – Obligation to state reasons – Application for reassessment – No changes in factual circumstances – rejection Letter – Inadmissible

T-426/10, [2016] EUECJ T-426/10
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564968

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Another v Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson and Others: CA 27 May 2016

Appeal by the third and fourth defendants against that part of an order which struck out one of Samsung’s competition law defences to this claim for patent infringement brought against it by the claimant.

Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2016] EWCA Civ 489
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564809

LL-Carpenter v Commission: ECFI 12 Mar 2020

Judgment – Competition – Cartels – Motor vehicle market in the Czech Republic – Decision rejecting a complaint – Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 – Article 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Obligation motivation

T-531/18, [2020] EUECJ T-531/18, ECLI: EU: T: 2020: 91
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654902

Buonotourist v Commission: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

State Aid – Undertaking Operating Bus Route Networks – Judgment – Appeal – Competition – State aid – Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) – Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) – European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market

C-586/18, [2020] EUECJ C-586/18P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:152
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654856

CSTP Azienda Della Mobilita v Commission: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

State Aid – Undertaking Operating Bus Route Networks – Judgment – Appeal – Competition – State aid – Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) – Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) – European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market

C-587/18, [2020] EUECJ C-587/18P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:150
Bailii
European

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654871

Boe Aquitaine SELARL v Mercialys SA: ECJ 19 Mar 2020

(Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53 (2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Competition – Article 101 TFEU – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings as well as the reasons justifying the need to an answer to the questions referred – Manifest inadmissibility

C-838/19, [2020] EUECJ C-838/19_CO
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654853

Donex Shipping and Forwarding: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commercial policy – Anti-dumping duties – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 – Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 2 (10) – Articles 6 (7), 19 and 20 – Procedural rights – Infringement of the rights of the defense – Union importer who did not participate in the anti-dumping proceeding

C-104/19, [2020] EUECJ C-104/19_O, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 159, [2020] EUECJ C-104/19
Bailii, Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654877

Trioplast Industrier v Commission: ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in industrial plastic bags – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Admissibility – Action for damages – Default interest – Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due – Proportionality – Legal certainty – Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence – Lack of legal basis – Article 266 TFEU – Causal link

T-669/14, [2016] EUECJ T-669/14
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563411

Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd: ECJ 19 Mar 1998

Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty – Directive 91/629/EEC – European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes – Recommendation concerning Cattle – Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation – Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Exhaustive harmonisation – Validity of the Directive

Times 02-Apr-1998, [1998] ECR I-1251, [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
Bailii, Bailii
EC Treaty 34 36, Directive 91/629/EEC
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoCompassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
See AlsoRegina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563234

Sot. Lelos Kai Sia, Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton and Others v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE (Competition): ECJ 16 Sep 2008

Europa Article 82 EC Abuse of dominant position – Pharmaceutical products – Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports – Ordinary orders.

C-477/06, [2008] EUECJ C-477/06, C-468/06, C-469/06, C-470/06, C-471/06, C-472/06, C-473/06, C-474/06, C-475/06, C-476/06, C-477/06, C-478/06
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.276394

Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Ciments francais, Italcementi – Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA; Buzzi Unicem SpA; Cementir v Commission: ECJ 7 Jan 2004

Europa Appeal – Competition – Cement market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Single and continuous infringement – Liability for an infringement – Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation – Fine – Determination of the amount.

C-204/00, C-205/00, [2004] EUECJ C-204/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-205/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-211/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-213/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-217/00P, C-211/00, C-213/00, C-217/00
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.192226

Budapest Bank and Others: ECJ 2 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Agreements – Article 101 (1) TFEU – Card payment systems – Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees – Agreement restricting competition both in terms of its object and effect – Concept of restriction competition ‘by object’

C-228/18, [2020] EUECJ C-228/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 265, [2019] EUECJ C-228/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654964

Arcelormittal Tubular Products Ostrava And Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co: ECJ 7 Apr 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 3(5), (7) and (9) – Article 6(1) – Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 – Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Determination of a threat of injury – Taking into account of post-investigation period data

C-186/14, [2016] EUECJ C-186/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:209
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 384/96
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561973

Eurofast v Commission: ECFI 18 Mar 2016

ECJ (Order) Interim measures – Grants – Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the grants – Debit note – Compensation Act – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

T-87/16, [2016] EUECJ T-87/16 – CO, ECLI:EU:T:2016:172
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561948

Xinyi Pv Products (Anhui) v Commission: ECFI 16 Mar 2016

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Market Economy Treatment (MET) – Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system – Tax incentives

T-586/14, [2016] EUECJ T-586/14, [2019] EUECJ T-586/14RENV
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561139

Heidelbergcement v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market for ‘cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18(1) and (3) – Decision requesting information – Statement of reasons – Clarification of the application

C-247/14, [2016] EUECJ C-247/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:149
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560960

Italmobiliare v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 – Decision to request information – Motivation – Accuracy of demand

C-268/14, [2016] EUECJ C-268/14, ECLI:US:C:2016:152
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560961

Buzzi Unicem v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 – Decision to request information – Motivation – Accuracy of demand

ECLI:EU:C:2016:151, C-267/14, [2016] EUECJ C-267/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560952

Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another: QBD 3 Oct 2011

The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the meaning of the Directive or the Regulations is a straightforward matter, to be determined by reference to the terms and the context of the agreement at the date it is concluded. The Regulations envisaged two types of Agent, but ‘None of this means that the non-derogable obligations of the commercial agent under article 3.1 and regulation 3(1), to look after the interests of the principal, and to act dutifully and in good faith, are to be imported into the definition of a commercial agent so that an agent acting for multiple principals does not fall within it.’ The correspondence indicated an implied term allowing the claimants to conduct additional competing agencies. The agreement was subject to the 1993 Regulations.

Cranston J
[2011] EWHC 2482 (QB)
Bailii
Commercial Agents Regulations 1993, Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCrane T/A Indigital Satellite Services v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and Another ChD 26-Jan-2007
The Directive’s substantive provisions were modelled primarily on the provisions of German domestic law. . .
CitedSagal (T/A Bunz UK) v Atelier Bunz Gmbh CA 3-Jul-2009
The court was asked whether the the appellant was a commercial agent of the defendant within the regulations, and so would be entitled to compensation on termination of the agency.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It does not follow that every agent acting . .
CitedTamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jun-2000
Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent’s services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a . .
CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedIngmar Gb Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc ECJ 16-Nov-2000
When a commercial agency was terminated in circumstances which under community law would entitle the agent to compensation, that compensation was payable even though the contract expressed itself to be governed by the law of California, and the . .
CitedDirector General of Fair Trading v First National Bank HL 25-Oct-2001
The House was asked whether a contractual provision for interest to run after judgment as well as before in a consumer credit contract led to an unfair relationship.
Held: The term was not covered by the Act, and was not unfair under the . .
CitedCrane (T/A Indigital Satelite Services) v Sky In-Home Ltd and Another CA 3-Jul-2008
Arden LJ considered the principles to be applied when considering whether a party to civil litigation should be allowed to appeal a trial judge’s decision on the basis that a claim, which could have been brought before him but was not, would have . .
CitedCrane T/A Indigital Satellite Services v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and Another ChD 26-Jan-2007
The Directive’s substantive provisions were modelled primarily on the provisions of German domestic law. . .
CitedKelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedTolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd HL 1903
Tolhurst had contracted to sell a quantity of chalk from his quarries to the Imperial Company for fifty years. The Imperial Company afterwards assigned the Contract and sold its land, works and business to the Associated Company, and went into . .
CitedAMB Imballaggi Plastici Srl v Pacflex Ltd CA 18-Jun-1999
A party who chose to contract as principal for the purpose of reselling the goods of the vendor on a speculative basis and for a profit, was not to be deemed to be a commercial agent of the first vendor, and so was not entitled to compensation on . .
CitedLinden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.444873

UTi Worldwide And Others v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Surcharges and tariff mechanisms having an impact on the final price of services – Errors of assessment – Proof – Whether trade between Member States affected – Appreciable effect on competition – Amount of the fine – Gravity of the infringement – Proportionality – Joint and several liability – Unlimited jurisdiction

T-264/12, [2016] EUECJ T-264/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:112
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560495

Panalpina World Transport (Holding) And Others v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing – Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price – Fines – Proportionality – Gravity of the infringement – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons – Settlement – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines

T-270/12, [2016] EUECJ T-270/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:109
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560488

Schenker v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing – Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price – Evidence contained in an application for immunity – Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients – Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation – Fiduciary duties – Whether trade between Member States affected – Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed – Choice of companies – Fines – Proportionality – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Equal treatment – Cooperation – Settlement – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines

[2016] EUECJ T-265/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:111
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560491