UK: Carrots and/or Sticks - Can Businesses Expect to be Involved in More Private Law Damages Claims for Breach of Competition Law?

Last Updated: 1 March 2006
Article by Adrian Wood

Originally published February 2006

Are we about to witness an increase in competition law enforcement activity in the UK courts at the hands of ordinary consumers, representative consumer bodies or competing businesses? Have businesses given any thought to how they could use competition law as a sword and not just as a shield? February 2006

EU sponsored research has shown that very few successful private law claims are brought in national courts to enforce competition law. In the case of the UK, in reality, most competition law enforcement is still undertaken by the public sector, through the medium of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and other sectoral regulators such as OFGEM. There are, however, signs that the balance between public and private sector competition law enforcement is changing, albeit slowly. So, for example, the recent case of Attheraces Ltd & Anor v British Horse Racing Board [2005] EWHC 3015 (CH) 21 December 2005 was one of the first successful Art 82 claims in the English civil courts under the new competition regime. The open door policy of the English courts is also becoming a factor.

Back in 2003, the High Court held in Provimi Ltd v Aventis Animal Nutrition SA and others [2003] EWHC 961 that a foreign claimant could bring an action for damages in the English courts against an English subsidiary of a foreign parent, even where the loss suffered outside the UK was caused solely by the anti-competitive behaviour of the foreign parent. The English courts were said to have jurisdiction to award the foreign claimant damages for its entire loss, as long as the subsidiary forms part of the same undertaking as the foreign parent for competition law purposes. Against this backdrop, the EU has tried to stimulate a debate about the appropriate balance between public and private competition law enforcement. To lessen the burden on national competition authorities, the European Commission started a consultation in December 2005 on how to increase the use of private law claims for damages for breach of competition law without creating a competition litigation culture.

This article outlines factors that need to be borne in mind by those considering bringing competition claims for damages in the UK and points to a number of questions that require resolution before we can expect to see a greater volume of competition litigation in the UK courts.

Some factors that might hinder private law enforcement in the UK

At first blush, it might be thought surprising that few UK businesses have used the High Court to claim damages for breach of competition law, especially as we now have, following implementation of the Enterprise Act 2002, theoretically one of the most accessible court-based dispute resolution systems in a first world economy. A number of factors are no doubt responsible:

  • We have a Catch-22 situation. The paucity of cases in the UK courts has not enabled Chancery judges to demonstrate their confidence in handling complex econometric analysis. This in turn prevents judges gaining necessary experience. Although there is also a specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) capable of handling monetary based competition law claims, knowledge of its jurisdiction is still not widespread;
  • Competition law claims can be very costly, as there will often be a need to establish the underlying economic market on which the alleged infringement occurred, unless an infringement finding has already been made by the OFT, CAT or European Commission;
  • Private law claimants do not have available to them an arsenal of public sector enforcement and disclosure powers (electronic surveillance, entry warrants, financial penalties for delayed disclosure of information etc);
  • Complaints to regulators can be a much cheaper solution for claimants. Litigation can be an expensive route for claimants and there may be significant uncertainty over whether successful claimants will always be able to recover full costs;
  • Victims of anti-competitive behaviour may depend for a large part of their business on dealings with competition law infringers. Small businesses often feel it would be suicidal to alienate their main customers; and
  • Direct victims of cartels may be able to pass on to their customers the cost to their business of the anticompetitive behaviour, so the direct consequences of the behaviour are camouflaged and victims are not incentivised to bring claims.

Interrelated conceptual and legal questions that require answers

Even if none of the above factors is relevant, some putative claimants point to a number of unresolved broader policy and legal questions that impact on the decision whether or not to take court action. For example:

  • Should infringers be allowed to escape sanction by pointing to the fact that those who purchased from them passed on the additional costs of the anticompetitive behaviour to indirect third party purchasers?
  • Should infringers normally receive a ‘reward’ for bringing successful infringement actions in the courts? In the USA, where 90% of competition law enforcement actions are brought by individuals or businesses, courts can in certain situations award the claimant treble damages to mark the gravity of the infringement. This remedy may serve to incentivise claimants as well as act as a deterrent to infringers, but many commentators criticise the idea of courts awarding windfall payments to claimants.
  • But if claimants are incentivised by the availability of large damages awards, will that result in fewer findings of infringement being made by national regulators because whistle blowers will be more reluctant to come forward and ‘shop’ fellow cartel members for fear that they might expose themselves to the risk of expensive third party claims?
  • If punitive damages awards are not deemed acceptable per se in national law and a claimant's loss is smaller than the infringer's gain, in what circumstances would it be possible to develop the law on restitution or account of profits to embrace claims with a competition element?
  • In order to limit the risk of a competition law based claim culture emerging, how should the courts apply concepts of causation and remoteness to competition law based claims?

Discussion and Summary

Clearly in volume terms, there has been very little competition litigation to date in the UK courts. But the backcloth is changing and a number of factors may be contributing to a head of steam favouring the private law enforcement route. First, the OFT's public sector stick has been found to be wanting by the UK's National Audit Office. Second, a number of pronouncements from the EU and UK competition regulatory bodies suggest that enforcement agencies will not be concentrating in the future on complaints made by businesses against their competitors. Third, although the claimants in Attheraces were seeking declarations and an injunction rather than damages, we can expect the case will revive interest in using the ordinary courts as a vehicle for competition law enforcement. Fourthly, further impetus to the private law route was given recently by the Opinion in cases C-295 to 298/04 Manfredi, where the Advocate-General stated that third parties should be able to claim damages for breach of competition law in their national courts in circumstances where there is a causal link between the infringing agreement or concerted practice and the harm suffered.

The institutional framework and locus standi for bringing such private law claims already exists in the UK but confidence in the procedural and evidential mechanisms has traditionally been lacking. A number of developments over the last 9 months suggest however that we may be on the cusp of witnessing a surge in interest in the use of the courts as a recovery vehicle for competition law claims. For example:

  • There is a growing realisation that reforms introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 reduce the evidentiary burden of proof on claimants. In particular, litigants can now rely upon infringement decisions of the OFT and European Commission as determinations of fact. This provision saves claimants the cost of proving the underlying unlawfulness of the defendant's behaviour;
  • Many of the infringement decisions of the Competition authorities relate to cartels involving raw materials. Businesses operating across a wide number of sectors are coming under pressure from their shareholders to consider how to recover wasted expenditure caused by those cartels;
  • The Commission's December 2005 consultation on damages is itself a response to pressure from businesses to explore ways in which access to the courts can be made easier for third party claimants that have suffered loss;
  • There is a growing interest in the use of class actions, particularly as a result of successful claims made in the USA. Inevitably, claims in the USA against international cartels will sometimes involve EU based businesses. As a natural spill-over effect, we can expect to see damages claims being made in the EU against such international cartelists. Moreover the designation by the Government in October 2005 of the Consumers Association as the representative body for bringing monetary based claims under the Competition Act 1998 on behalf of consumers will mean it is only a question of time before the first claim is brought; and
  • There is strong anecdotal evidence that a number of competition and EU law based damages actions have been settled out of court in the UK. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that national courts across the EU are beginning to see an upturn in competition related claims. The Advocate-General's recent Opinion in Case 295/04 Manfredi will fuel that discussion.

A balanced mix of sticks and incentives (speedy access to courts, effective disclosure rules, use of class actions etc) should ensure that only genuine cases come to court. Offering juicy carrots in the form of damages awards based on a multiplier is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome for all stakeholders. Moreover too many carrots may produce too many rampant rabbits, resulting in additional costs to consumers arising from the purchase by businesses of extended insurance cover. Competition Law is littered with examples of where over-regulation has produced detrimental consequences for consumers. Hopefully such mistakes will not be repeated when the European Commission comes to consider the possibility of a White Paper on damages actions.

Despite the considerations noted earlier, it is only a question of time before we begin to see both UK national courts and alternative dispute resolution systems being used regularly for competition law claims. Businesses should be considering now both how they can take advantage of these mechanisms to secure competitive advantages as well as how to develop appropriate competition compliance responses to limit the threat that such claims against them could bring.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions