HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors - commercial legal work

Arbitration & mediation
Assets/shares buy/sell
Business start ups
Commercial & transactions
Company law & compliance
Competition law (UK & EU)
Confidentiality & privacy
Construction & building
Contracts drafting
Conveyancing (commercial)
Copyright (infringement & licensing)
Debt recovery & winding up
Designs (registration & infringement)
Directors' duties & liabilities
E-commerce contracts
Employment (contracts, regulations & claims)
Franchising
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel (defamation)
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off claims
Patents (infringement)
Planning representation
Professional (regulatory)
Professional negligence
Reinsurance & insurance
Shareholders
Software (licensing)
Sports contracts
Trade marks (trademarks)

Competition law Anti competitive activity - acquisitions - Competition Commission - procedural unfairness - duty to communicate factors influential to decision making I, a Belgian public company which owned a number of major international beer brands, sought to challenge a decision of CC that its proposed acquisition of BB would be anti-competitive because it would create a duopoly between I and another major brewer, which was likely to operate against the public interest. Shortly before I agreed to buy BB, it had acquired W together with the licence to produce "Stella Artois", a leading brand of premium lager, in the United Kingdom. CC had ordered I to divest itself of BB's UK operations to a buyer approved by the Director of Fair Trading. I submitted that divestment of BB was a grossly disproportionate method of dealing with the anti-competitive consequences of the acquisition and that CC's decision had been reached on the unfounded assumption that an alternative remedy, namely the divestment of W with "Stella Artois", would not create an effective third player in the market. Held, granting the application, that there had been procedural unfairness during the decision making process. CC's task had been to restore effective competition to the market by applying the least restrictive remedy. On the facts, CC had considered a number of options, but it had failed to raise with I at the hearings prior to the decision being made, the question of the viability of W as a competitor and licensor. That issue had played a vital part in CC's determination, which I could not have been expected to know. CC did not have to adopt a two-stage procedure whereby it communicate a provisional finding to the parties concerned before pronouncing its definitive decision, but a failure to divulge its full reasoning and to give the parties an opportunity to make representations on the issues considered could, as in the instant case, render a decision void for unfairness. "Current Law" November 2001
E-mail us with details of your enquiry on competition-law@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant Material



Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Also recommended by The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East and Africa 2009 - 2010.


Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co. Solicitors

Home Page