HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Arbitration
Assets/shares buy/sell
Commercial advice
Company law
Company start ups
Competition law
Confidentiality
Construction & building
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Copyright
Debt recovery
Design rights
Directors duties
Discrimination
Dismissal law
E-commerce
Employment
European law
Franchising
Infringement
Insurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Merchandising
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off
Patents
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundacy
Reinsurance
Shareholders
Software
Sponsorship
Sports contracts
Trade Marks (Trademarks)
Unfair dismissal

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




Watchdog fines bus companies over cartel
 
Dominant position - injunctions - on-line information
 
Anti competitive activity - acquisitions
 
Competition law
 
Cartel crack-down team strengthened
 
SAVING GRACE TO END
 
Damages claim in anti-competitive beer contract
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



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

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page