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 imported so-called ‘replica parts’ and said that the costs of such a scheme would be so disproportionate as to destroy their business. It said that this might be appropriate for safety related parts, but the defendant’s definition of such was too wide, and the scheme was in breach of the 1988 Act. The defendant asked that the claim be struck out.
Held: The court could not conclude that repairers would not feel bound by the standard so as to infringe the claimant’s rights. Limited parts of the particulars were struck out, but the rest should proceed. The court considered the guidelines in Santolino adding that for ‘competition law claims (or defences), that 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 success that the existing case law will not be extended or modified’ so as to encompass the basis of argument advanced.’
The issue depends upon a careful analysis of the specific allegation and the facts then relied upon. The essence of Article 101, as applied to horizontal agreements, is to prohibit the substitution of co-ordinated action between competitors for the independent policy that each would otherwise pursue.
Roth J
[2010] EWHC 854 (Ch)
Bailii
Competition Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
CitedBayer AG v Commission (Rec 2000,p II-3383) ECFI 26-Oct-2000
The Commission had found that Bayer’s policy of restricting parallel imports of its pharmaceutical drug, ADALAT, constituted part of its dealership agreements, and had annuled them.
Held: Although Bayer clearly intended to restrict parallel . .
CitedIntel 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 . .
CitedIntel 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 . .
CitedBundesverband 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 . .
CitedBundesverband 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 . .
CitedBHB Enterprises Plc v Victor Chandler (International) Ltd ChD 27-May-2005
The claimant created a very substantial computerised database about horses and the racing industry. It licensed the database to users, including some who were able to grant sub-licenses. It sought to rely on the Database Directive to support its . .
CitedDoncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd and Others v The Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd CA 26-May-2006
Appeals were made against interlocutory injunctions for alleged trade mark infringement.
Held: The court should hesitate about making a final decision for summary judgment without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the . .
CitedUnipart Group Ltd v O2 (UK) Ltd and Another CA 30-Jul-2004
The court considered the applicability of Article 81 in Chapter 1 of Part III of the EC Treaty to allegedly anti-competitive conduct in the market for the wholesale supply of airtime for mobile telephones. Unipart, an independent service provider . .
CitedGeneral Motors Nederland and Opel Nederland v Commission (Judgment) ECFI 21-Oct-2003
Europa Agreements between Opel’s national sales company in Holland and its authorised dealers were challenged as infringing competition law. The Commission had found that the agreements incorporated Opel’s policy . .
CitedSuiker Unie and Others v Commission ECJ 16-Dec-1975
. .
CitedAC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition) ECFI 8-Jul-2008
Europa Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Organic peroxides – Fines – Article 81 EC – Rights of the defence – Right to a fair hearing – Meaning of perpetrator of an infringement – . .

Cited by:
CitedHumber 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408671