The appellant dairy sold milk to the defendant roundsmen, each agreeing not to sell milk by retail to the others customers. The defendant began to buy his milk elsewhere, and claimed the agreement should have been registered as a restrictive trade practice.
Held: The agreement did not come within the first exemption from registration. The Act applies to agreements and arrangements, however made (‘any agreement or arrangement’), and whether legally enforceable or not. Registerability should depend upon substance not form. The result should not be determined by asking whether the condition was a term of or a restriction in the agreement. The test for registration under the Act should be as simple and clear as possible. The court discussed the danger of of over-literal interpretation of the language of a statute: ‘Linguistic arguments of this character should be handled warily. They are a legitimate and useful aid in statutory interpretation, but they are no more than this. Sometimes a difference in language is revealing and therefore important, other times not. In the process of statutory interpretation there always comes a stage, before reaching a final decision, when one should stand back and view a suggested interpretation in the wider context of the scheme and purpose of the Act. After all, the object of the exercise is to elucidate the intention fairly and reasonably attributable to Parliament when using the language under consideration.’
Judges:
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Mustill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde
Citations:
[1997] 2 WLR 364, [1997] UKHL 7, [1997] AC 524, [1997] 1 All ER 833
Links:
Statutes:
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – MD Foods v Baines and others CA 1996
The parties agreed to buy and sell milk but not to each others customers. The agreement was a restricve trade parctice and was void for not having been registered. . .
Cited – Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements v Schweppes Ltd (No. 2) 1971
. .
Appeal from – Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others CA 6-Jul-1995
A milkman’s round agreement with the dairy supplying him with milk for sale, was registerable as a restrictive agreement if the words so require despite alternative remedies, and even though in this instance it might be borderline. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others CA 6-Jul-1995
A milkman’s round agreement with the dairy supplying him with milk for sale, was registerable as a restrictive agreement if the words so require despite alternative remedies, and even though in this instance it might be borderline. . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, Contract
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158882