Category: Commercial

Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc and others: ChD 14 Jun 2002

The claimant sought damages for patent infringement. The respondent asserted that the refusal to licence the patent amounted to an abuse of its dominant position. Complaint had also been brought in the US.
Held: The licence offered by Intel would distort the market. The refusal to licence on other terms prevented other companies even getting a foothold in the market. However the refusal to licence an intellectual property is a right in the owner save when it is an abuse, and even then the defence is only available exceptionally. The defendant had not made out the conditions precedent. Summary judgement for the claimant.

Judges:

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1159 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81(1) 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution ChD 23-Apr-2010
The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant . .
Appeal from – Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc, Elitegroup Computer Systems (UK) Ltd Via Technologies Inc , Via Technologies (Europe) Ltd, Realtime Distribution Ltd CA 20-Dec-2002
Infringement of patents.
Held: With regard in particular to competition law claims (or defences), where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious ‘to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Commercial, European

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.175275

Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan: CA 29 Apr 1997

An appellant should notify the respondent if wishes to apply again for leave to add further grounds of appeal.

Citations:

Times 19-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1551

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 30-Jul-1997
A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 30-Jul-1997
A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141947

Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese Organisation for International Commerce: CA 25 Jun 1997

The court was asked: ‘(1) What approach should the Court adopt on seeking to ascertain, by a process of implication, what terms of a letter of credit are contractual under an FOB sale which provides for payment to be made by an irrevocable and confirmed letter of credit but does not otherwise specify the terms which that letter of credit should contain?
(2) Whether the principle that a party, giving a wrong or inadequate reason for refusal to perform a contract, may justify his refusal by relying on some other reason not relied on at the time, is qualified by a further principle
(a) that such other reason is one which, if relied on at the time of refusal to perform, could not have been put right; and/or
(b) that a party who gives one ground for his refusal to perform may by his conduct be precluded from setting up a different ground if it would be unjust or unfair to allow him to do so’.

Judges:

Nourse, Evans LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1958, [1997] 4 ALL ER 514, [1997] CLC 1274, [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC and Another QBD 4-Nov-2009
The parties had entered into a sponsorship agreement, with the claimants undertaking to display the name of the defendants on their car. After the agreement, the claimant company had been taken over by parties with interests competing with those of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.142354

Council Of The European Union v European Commission: ECJ 22 Nov 2012

ECJ Appeal – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 – Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India – Decision 2006/38/EC – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 8(9) – Undertakings offered in connection with anti-dumping proceedings

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta P

Citations:

C-552/10, [2012] EUECJ C-552/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 121/2006, Decision 2006/38/EC, Regulation (EC) No 384/96

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.465979

Fortuna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

ECJ Internal market – Directive 98/34/EC – Technical standards and regulations – Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations – Low-prize gaming machines – Prohibition of the amendment, extension and issue of operating authorisations – Concept of ‘technical regulation’

Judges:

Lenaerts, P

Citations:

C-213/11, [2012] EUECJ C-213/11, [2011] EUECJ C-213/11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 98/34/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.463224

Alstom Transport v Eurostar International Ltd: ChD 20 Jan 2012

The claimant wished to supply rolling stock to the defendant, and alleged that its tendering process had been breach of European requirements. The defendant argued that the process was not subject to the rules.
Held: Roth J said: ‘an implementing regulation is to be interpreted in the light of the directive which it is intended to implement. Moreover, it is well-established that such national legislation should receive a purposive rather than a literal construction in order to achieve the result pursued by the related directive.’

Judges:

Roth J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 28 (Ch), (2012) 140 Con LR 1, [2012] WLR(D) 4, [2013] PTSR 454

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – NATS (Services) Ltd v Gatwick Airport Ltd and Another TCC 2-Oct-2014
NATS had tendered unsuccessfully for a contract to provide air traffic control services at Gatrwick airport, and challenged the award. GAL denied that the Regulations applied and now sought disapplication of the automatic suspension from the award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450454

Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Cpc), Brewman Group Limited: ChD 26 Jun 2003

The landlord had signed agreements tieing him to sales of beers. After falling into debt, he challnged the prices he had been obliged to pay as contravening the Treaty. The European Court had held that there was a possible claim under the Treaty.
Held: The UK market in beer did not operate to exclude competition from those who wished to enter the market or increase their market share, and so the claim failed the first test set by the European Court. The fact that the comeptition within the UK between suppliers was vigorous did not however determine the issue where the proportion of tied houses was so high as to prevent newcomers getting a foothold in the market..

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Park

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1510 (Ch), Gazette 10-Jul-2003, Times 13-Aug-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] EuLR 663

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Remitted from – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
See Also – Courage Limited v Crehan ChD 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan; The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd v Byrne; Same v Langton; Greenalls Management Ltd v Smith; Walker Cain Ltd v McCaughey CA 14-Jun-1999
There is not to be read into a beer tie term any implied provision that the beer to be supplied under the term was to be supplied at any kind of advantageous price. A tenant seeking damages for failure to supply under such a term was not entitled to . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan CA 12-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Remitted to – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
Appeal from – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
At First Instance – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial, European

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.184035

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bell Davies Trading Ltd and KTA Limited: ChD 16 Jan 2004

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 20 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bell Davies Trading Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 30-Jul-2004
The directors of the company had organised a scheme for imports from China which was thought to be an unlawful abuse of the import licensing scheme. When presneted with an application by the Secretary of State for the winding up of the company, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, European, Commercial

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.192050

Editions Jacob v Commission T-471/11: ECFI 24 Nov 2011

(Competition) Merits – Competition – Concentration of undertakings – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to retrocession of assets – Annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the Commission’s approval of the purchaser of the assets retroceded – Application for suspension of operation of the decision on the new approval of the same purchaser – Emergency defect – Balancing of interests

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-471/11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – Editions Jacob v Commission T-471/11 ECJ 5-Sep-2014
ECJ Competition – Concentrations – Book publishing market – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to retrocession of assets – Decision approving the acquirer of the assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449359

RKW v Commission (2): ECFI 16 Nov 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Sector Industrial plastic bags – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Guidelines for the calculation of fines – Maximum limit of 10% of sales – Implementation – legality – proportionality – Equal treatment – Single and continuous infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Exclusively passive role – Obligation to state reasons – Liability for unlawful conduct

Judges:

Pelikanova P

Citations:

T-55/06, [2011] EUECJ T-55/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.448727

Sachsa Verpackung v Commission: ECFI 16 Nov 2011

ECFI (Competition) French Text – Competition – Cartels – industrial plastic bags – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing – Allocation of sales quotas by geographical area – Distribution of clients – Exchange of individualized information – Proof of offense – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – Proportionality – Mitigating circumstances – Role follower

Judges:

Pelikanova P

Citations:

T-79/06, [2011] EUECJ T-79/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.448729

Paccar Inc and Others v Road Haulage Association Ltd and Others: CA 5 Mar 2021

Important issue of general concern to those engaged in the business of litigation funding in England and Wales and their clients. The issue arises in the context of collective proceedings brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) pursuant to section 47B of the Competition Act 1998

Judges:

Lord Justice Henderson

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Costs

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.659357

Servaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank and Others: CA 3 Nov 2011

A commercial debt due to the claimant from the former Iraqi government, and for which judgment had been obtained in France, had been bought from receivers by the new Iraqi Development fund. The appellants sought to secure their judgment in full by a Third Party Debt Order. The respondents had certified it to be a state debt and immune under section 13 of the 1978 Act. The claimants appealed against rejection of their request.
Held: The claim failed. The Act required the claimant to show a current or intended commercial use. An historical use was insufficient.
Rix LJ said: ‘it is difficult to see that the property in question, the admitted claim, has no current use. It is in use in order to secure the scheme dividend. Of course, the dividend, when secured, might be put to any of the uses to which money funds might be put, either by being expended or by being invested. For the present, however, until the dividend is paid, the claim’s obvious use and purpose, I would have thought, was to be the means by which the claim’s owner, Iraq, seeks to secure its value by way of a dividend in the scheme of arrangement. That is what the commercial debt was bought for in the first place, and, until the scheme of arrangement (or, in its absence, a liquidation) has been brought to fruition, the owner holds the debt for the purpose of seeking payment of its claim. For these purposes, Iraq is just like the holder of any commercial debt. As purchaser of the debt, it merely stands in the shoes of the merchants and other commercial parties who were the original owners of the debt in question. If those parties were still holders of the debt, it would not be said that they held it for no current purpose. It seems to me to be at least highly arguable that Iraq is in the same position. On this basis, the linchpin of Iraq’s argument fails.’

Judges:

Rix, Hooper, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1256

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Commercial Court – Servaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank and Others ComC 14-Dec-2010
The claimant had supplied a factory to Iraq, but remained unpaid. Assets had been frozen in the respondent Iraqi bank, and with the new government, the liquidators were to pay assets to a fund who were, in turn to discharge debts pro rata. The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidian Bank and Others SC 17-Aug-2012
The appellant had contracted to construct a factory in Iraq. On the imposition of sanctions, the respondent bank’s assets were frozen. The appellant sought to recover the sums due to it, and obtained judgment in France. After the fall of Hussain, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Commercial

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448139

Transcatab v Commission: ECFI 5 Oct 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Italy’s first purchase and processing of raw tobacco – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing and market sharing – Liability for the infringement – Fines – Proportionality – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Cooperation

Citations:

T-39/06, [2011] EUECJ T-39/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444960

Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission: ECFI 29 Jul 2011

ECFI (Competition) Interim measures – Competition – Enquiry – Article 18, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1 / 2003 – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency.

Citations:

T-296/11, [2011] EUECJ T-296/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission 14-Mar-2014
Competition – Administrative procedure – Request for information decision – Necessary nature of the information requested – Significantly serious evidence – Judicial review – Proportionality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444080

Mediaset v Commission (State Aid): ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ Appeal – Subsidies granted by the Italian Republic to promote the purchase of digital decoders – Non-inclusion of decoders for the reception solely of television programmes broadcast by satellite – Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market.

Citations:

C-403/10, [2011] EUECJ C-403/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442296

Emme v Commission: ECFI 12 Jul 2011

(Competition) Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of operation – Financial loss – Absence of exceptional circumstances – Lack of urgency

Citations:

T-422/10, [2011] EUECJ T-422/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442283

Toshiba v Commission (Competition): ECFI 12 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Rights of the defence – Proof of the infringement – Single and continuous infringement – Fines – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Statement of reasons – Starting amount – Reference year.

Citations:

T-113/07, [2011] EUECJ T-113/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441812

Thyssenkrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission T-147/07: ECFI 13 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Handling bids – Distribution markets – Price Fixing.

Citations:

T-147/07, [2011] EUECJ T-147/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441807

Mitsubishi Electric v Commission: ECFI 12 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Rights of the defence – Proof of the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Starting amount – Reference year – Equal treatment

Citations:

T-133/07, [2011] EUECJ T-133/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441798

Dow Chemical And Others v Commission (Competition): ECFI 13 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the offending conduct – Fines – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances.

Citations:

T-42/07, [2011] EUECJ T-42/07

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441778

Fuji Electric v Commission: ECFI 12 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Proof of the infringement – Whether liable for the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-132/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441781

Kier Group Plc, Kier Regional Ltd v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 11 Mar 2011

The CAT set ot the decision of the respondent: ‘1 On 21 September 2009 the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) published a decision under the Competition Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) entitled ‘Bid rigging in the construction industry in England’ (‘the Decision’). The Decision is the longest decision ever adopted by the OFT, running to nearly 2,000 pages. It followed an extensive investigation which took place over some five and a half years between April 2004 and September 2009 which was by far the largest undertaken by the OFT, in terms of the number of parties involved, the number of inspections made and the number of suspected infringements.
2 In the Decision the OFT found that, in the period 2000 to 2006, 103 undertakings had each committed between one and three infringements of the prohibition contained in section 2 of the 1998 Act (‘the Chapter I Prohibition’). That prohibition applies to agreements or concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom.
3 By far the majority of those infringements consisted of what can perhaps be referred to as ‘simple’ cover pricing, to distinguish them from the six infringements described at paragraph 21 below. ‘Simple’ cover pricing occurs where one of those invited to tender for a construction contract (Company A) does not wish to win the contract, but does not want to indicate its lack of interest to the client, for whose work it may wish to be invited to tender in the future. Company A therefore seeks a cover price from another company which is tendering for that contract (Company B). Company B will be seeking to win the contract and will have reached a view as to its own tender price. Indeed it may already have submitted its own tender to the client. The cover price which it provides to Company A will be at a level sufficiently high to ensure that Company A does not win. This price is submitted to the client by Company A as though it is a genuine tender. It should be noted that Company B does not reveal its own tender price to Company A – the cover price is an inflated price.
4 The OFT imposed penalties totalling approximately andpound;129.2m in respect of 199 infringements.’

Citations:

[2011] CAT 3

Links:

Bailii

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441647

Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others: CAT 25 May 2011

Judges:

Marcus Smith QC, Mrs Margot Daly and Mr Dermot Glynn

Citations:

[2011] CAT 16, [2011] Comp AR 569

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal From – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others CA 31-Jul-2012
The respondent company (MC) had disclosed to the European Commission its own historical involvement in unlawful price-fixing cartels. Other members, but not MC received fines. The claimants (DB) sought damages for their losses arising from the . .
At CAT – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441655

Telefonica O2 Uk Ltd v Office of Communications and Another: CAT 7 Oct 2010

OFCOM had disallowed a new termination tarriff imposed by BT on mobile network operators.
Held: The appeal succeeded. BT had the right to vary its charges subject to compiance with the appropriate European objectives and directives. Since the tarriff would not be harmful to comsumers, it could not be set aside.

Citations:

[2010] CAT 25

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Telefonica O2 UK Ltd and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another CA 25-Jul-2012
BT had introduced a new tarriff for termination charges in respect of calls made from mobile phones to 08 numbers.
Held: The Court overruled the CAT and restored the decision of Ofcom. The CAT had been wrong to attach weight to their view that . .
At CAT – British Telecommunications Plc v Telefonica O2 UK Ltd SC 9-Jul-2014
The parties disputed the termination charges which BT was entitled to charge to mobile network operators for putting calls from the latter’s networks through to BT fixed lines with associated 08 numbers. BT had introduced new tariff charges.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Media

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441666

Solvay v Commission T-186/06: ECFI 16 Jun 2011

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ – Access to the file – Fines – Leniency Notice – Equal treatment – Legitimate expectations – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-186/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441193

Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission (Competition): ECFI 16 Jun 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – International removal services market in Belgium – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing – Market-sharing – Bid-rigging – Single and continuous infringement – Burden of proof.

Citations:

T-210/08, [2011] EUECJ T-210/08

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441198

Solvay Solexis v Commission: ECFI 16 Jun 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements – Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Meaning of’accord ‘and’ concerted practice ‘- Access to the file – Fines – Equal treatment – Leniency Notice – Duty to state reasons.

Citations:

T-195/06, [2011] EUECJ T-195/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441192

Telefonica v Commission (Judgment) French Text: ECFI 28 Jun 2016

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets – Non-compete clause in the Iberian market included in the contract for Telefonica’s acquisition of Portugal Telecom’s stake in Brazilian mobile operator Vivo – Legal safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ – Offense by Purpose – Ancillary Restriction – Autonomy of Applicant’s Conduct – Potential Competition – Effect Infraction – Calculation of Fine – Request for Hearing of Witnesses

Citations:

T-216/13, [2016] EUECJ T-216/13, ECLI: EU: T: 2016: 369

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.566471

Portugal Telecom v Commission (Judgment) French Text : ECFI 28 Jun 2016

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets – Non-compete clause in the Iberian market included in the contract for Telefonica’s acquisition of Portugal Telecom’s stake in Brazilian mobile operator Vivo – Legal safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ – Duty to state reasons – Infringement by purpose – Ancillary restriction – Potential competition – Effect infringement – Calculation of the amount of the fine – Request for the hearing of witnesses

Citations:

T-208/13, [2016] EUECJ T-208/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.566466

Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports: ChD 11 May 2011

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1184 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 24-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to renew its leases of docking facilities from the landlord defendant. The defendant resisted saying it intended to operate its own business, and the claimant now alleged that the defendant was abusing its dominant position to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 27-Jun-2011
Pre-trial review of pending trial. The court ordered the hearing of a preliminary issue being: ‘the issue of whether the Defendant intends to occupy the holdings for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by it . .
See Also – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 29-Jul-2011
. .
See Also – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 27-Jan-2012
. .
See Also – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 10-May-2012
The tenant appealed against a finding that the landlord was entitled to resist renewal of its lease under the 1954 Act challenging the stated intention of the landlord to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. It said that the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439669

Commission v Sgl Carbon Ag: ECJ 29 Jun 2006

ECJ Appeals – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Graphite electrodes – Article 81(1) EC – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Leniency Notice – Production of documents in a Commission investigation.

Citations:

C-301/04, [2006] EUECJ C-301/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.243004

Bundesverband Der Arzneimittel-Importeure v Bayer And Commission: ECJ 6 Jan 2004

EU (Competition) Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in pharmaceutical product.

Citations:

C-3/01, [2004] EUECJ C-3/01P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV and Commission of the European Communities v Bayer AG ECJ 6-Jan-2004
Europa Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in . .
Cited – Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution ChD 23-Apr-2010
The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.213758

Fluorsid Spa v European Commission: ECFI 18 Jun 2013

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – World market in aluminium fluoride – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Action for annulment – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Out of time – Inadmissibility – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Evidence of the infringement – Rights of defence – Definition of the relevant market – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – 2006 Guidelines on fines

Judges:

Azizi Rep

Citations:

T-404/08, [2013] EUECJ T-404/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.511003

Proas v Commission: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC – Spanish market for penetration bitumen – Market sharing and price coordination – Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union – Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission – Appeal on the cost

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:415, [2016] EUECJ C-616/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.565630

Kakol v Commission: ECJ 22 Jan 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Public service – Competitions – Open competition EPSO / AD / 177/10 – Eligibility criteria – Non-admission to a competition – Failure to state reasons – Admission to participate in a similar previous competition – Duty to state specific reasons – Action for annulment – Action in compensation

Judges:

K. Bradley, P

Citations:

F-1/14, [2015] EUECJ F-1/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.541736

European Night Services v Commission T-388/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-388/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433444

European Night Services v Commission T-375/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities’ – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

T-375/94, [1998] EUECJ T-375/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433442

European Night Services v Commission T-384/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

(Competition) Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities’ – Statement of reasons – Admissibility

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-384/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433443

Solvay v Commission C-110/10: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeal – Competition – Agreements (Article 81 EC) – Rights of the defense – Right of access to the file – Loss of information in the file – Right to be Heard – Principle of reasonable time – Excessive length of proceedings – European Markets soda.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-110/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Solvay v Commission C-110/10 ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Market in soda ash in the Community – Concerted practice – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Hearing of the undertaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433408

Council v Interpipe Niko Tube And Interpipe Ntrp C-200/09: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeal – Common commercial policy – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Articles 2(10), 3(2), 18(3) and 19(3) – Comparison of the normal value and the export price – Adjustment – Rights of the defence – Imports of certain seamless tubes and pipes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine – Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 – Cooperation by the European Union industry – Use of confidential information.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-200/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433387

Solvay v Commission C-109/10: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeals – Competition – Abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC) – Fidelity rebate – Discrimination against business partners – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Loss of documents in the administrative procedure – Right to a hearing – Prohibition on the use of evidence (Article 20(1) of Regulation No 17) – Right to have a matter adjudicated upon within a reasonable time – Excessive length of the proceedings – European market for soda ash.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-109/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Solvay v Commission C-109/10 ECJ 25-Oct-2011
Appeal – Competition – Market in soda ash in the Community – Abuse of dominant position – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Hearing of the undertaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433407

Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) v Commission (Competition): ECFI 13 Jul 2006

ECJ Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Markets for recorded music and on-line music – Existence of a collective dominant position – Risk of creation of a collective dominant position – Conditions – Transparency of the market – Deterrence – Statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment.

Citations:

T-464/04, [2006] EUECJ T-464/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.243107

Aberdeen Journals Limited v Director General of Fair Trading: CAT 16 Oct 2001

CAT Judgment on location of the proceedings.

Citations:

[2001] CAT 5, 1005/1/1/01

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) CAT 2002
Sir Christopher Bellamy said: ‘. . the question whether a certain pricing practice by a dominant undertaking is to be regarded as abusive for the purposes of Chapter II is a matter to be looked at in the round, taking particularly into account (i) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.227104

Brazier, Brazier Scaffolding Limited v Bramwell Scafolding (Dunedin) Limited, Harvey and Bramwell Scaffolding Limited: PC 18 Dec 2001

(New Zealand) One party sought the restructuring of a company in which he owned a substantial interest. The settlement required him to undertake not to compete with the company. Later he was suspected to be acting in breach of the covenant, and his explanation was not accepted by the court. It was argued that the finding was a finding of fraud where none had been pleaded.
Held: The decision did not imply any finding of fraud. An injunction had been granted to oblige the appellant not to act in breach of the covenant, but not against the man who, it had been claimed as acting as his front man. It was argued that damages could not be awarded as well as an injunction. That power existed and there was no double recovery.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Sir Martin Nourse Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

No 7 of 2001, [2001] UKPC 59

Links:

PC, PC, Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1955 (New Zealand)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Company

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.167224

Viega v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Sector copper fittings and copper alloy – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Participation in the infringement – Obligation to state reasons – Fines – Turnover relevant – Extenuating Circumstances.

Citations:

T-375/06, [2011] EUECJ T-375/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431366

Kaimer And Others v Commission (Competition) French Text: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Sector copper fittings and copper alloy – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Rights of the defense – Participation in the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Mitigating circumstances – Proportionality – Equal treatment.

Citations:

T-379/06, [2011] EUECJ T-379/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431359

IMI And Others v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Relevant turnover – Leniency Notice – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Equal treatment.

Citations:

T-378/06, [2011] EUECJ T-378/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431356

Fra.Bo v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Leniency Notice – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Attenuating circumstances – Immunity from fines – Legitimate expectations – Equal treatment.

Citations:

T-381/06, [2011] EUECJ T-381/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431352

Comap v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of participation in the infringement – Fines – Determination of the starting amount of the fine – Proportionality.

Citations:

T-377/06, [2011] EUECJ T-377/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431340

IBP And International Building Products France v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of participation in the infringement – Fines – Aggravating circumstances.

Citations:

T-384/06, [2011] EUECJ T-384/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431355

Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria: CA 1977

The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.
Held: The key questions are those of ‘governmental control’ and ‘governmental functions’ and that these are to be determined as a matter of English law, although the English courts may have regard to the position under the law where the body is incorporated and account can be taken of the view of the government concerned.
International law was incorporated into domestic law unless it was in conflict with statutory provision. This enabled domestic law to respond to changes in international law rather than it being bound by the interpretation of international law upon a particular point when it was first decided, if international law had later evolved. Domestic law could evolve as the incorporated international law evolved.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Seeing that the rules of international law have changed – and do change – and that the courts have given effect to the changes without any Act of Parliament, it follows to my mind inexorably that the rules of international law, as existing from time to time, do form part of our English law.’ and ‘we should give effect to those changes and not be bound by any idea of stare decisis in international law’ and ‘Governments everywhere engage in activities which although incidental in one way or another to the business of government are in themselves essentially commercial in their nature.’
Lord Denning MR said that it was necessary to look to all the evidence to see whether the organisation in question was under government control and exercised governmental functions in order to determine whether it was part of the State.
Shaw LJ stated that whether a particular organisation is to be accorded the status of a department of government or not must depend upon its constitution, its powers and duties and its activities. There could be no intermediate hybrid status occupied by the bank where it was regarded as a government department for certain purposes and as an ordinary commercial or financial institution for different purposes.

Judges:

Shaw LJ, Denning MR, Oliver LJ

Citations:

[1977] 1 QB 529, [1976] 3 All ER 437, [1976] 1 WLR 868

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Trepca Mines (No 2) CA 1962
Champerty: Lord Denning MR said: ‘The reason why the common law condemns champerty is because of the abuses to which it may give rise. The common law fears that the champertous maintainer might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Perch, Dennie and Commissiong v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 20-Feb-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The postal system had been transferred to a company. Employees complained that they had been public servants and had lost privileges associated with that employment, and provisions of the . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1) HL 22-Nov-1998
The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution.
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Cited – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo; Glencore Energy UK Limited, Sphynx UK Limited, Sphynx (BDA) Limited, Africa Oil and Gas Corporation, Cotrade SA (Third Parties) ComC 28-Nov-2005
The claimant had taken an assignment of debts owed by the defendant, and obtained judgment in US$121m. They sought to enforce the judgment and obtained third party debt orders against the parties listed.
Held: Officers in the third party . .
Approved – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Cited – AIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria QBD 13-Jun-2003
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act . .
Cited – Morris and Another v London Borough of Southwark QBD 5-Feb-2010
The residential tenant claimant sought damages from her council for failure to repair her flat. The counciil now objected to being asked to pay her costs, saying that the agreement with her solicitors was champertous, being a Conditional Fee . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Cited – Ali Hussein v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 1-Feb-2013
The claimant sought to challenge the legality of techniques of interrogation intended to be used by forces members detaining person captured in Afghanistan. He had himself been mistreated by such officers in Iraq. The defendant denied he had . .
Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Commercial, International, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.186583

Areva and Others v Commission T-121/07: ECFI 3 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Rights of the defence – Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Whether answerable for the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Joint and several liability for payment of a fine – Aggravating circumstances – Role of leader – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-121/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430327

Siemens and Va Tech Transmission and Distribution v Commission T-124/07: ECFI 3 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Effects within the common market – Notion of continuous infringement – Duration of the infringement – Limitation period – Fines – Proportionality – Ceiling of 10% of turnover – Joint and several liability for payment of a fine – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation – Rights of the defence.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-124/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430345