The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the Rules or the Act, to impose such a condition when setting aside a decision and remitting a case. It was able to say that it considered the matter to be urgent.
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Sedley
 EWCA Civ 768, Times 26-Jul-2006,  4 All ER 688,  Bus LR 338,  ECC 30
England and Wales
Cited – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 19-Mar-2002
A decision of the Director General was set aside and the matter remitted to the DGFT, with a direction that a new notice under the then relevant rules be issued within 2 months. . .
Cited – Freeserve.com PLC v Director General of Telecommunications (5) CAT 16-Apr-2003
Final judgment. . .
Appeal from – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications - CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
Cited – Crest Nicholson Plc v Office of Fair Trading Admn 24-Jul-2009
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242544