Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd: CA 15 Jun 2006

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
[2006] EWCA Civ 768, Times 26-Jul-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 688, [2007] Bus LR 338, [2006] ECC 30
Bailii
Competition Act 1998, Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003 (2003 No 1372)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAberdeen 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. . .
CitedFreeserve.com PLC v Director General of Telecommunications (5) CAT 16-Apr-2003
Final judgment. . .
Appeal fromFloe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
See AlsoFloe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
. .
See AlsoFloe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
. .

Cited by:
CitedCrest 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242544