UK: The Private Enforcement Of Competition Law

Last Updated: 30 July 2008
Article by Tony Bailes and Robert Bell

Civil Actions To Recover Damages For Breach Of UK And EC Competition Law Are Set To Rise Significantly In The Next Few Years.

Competition disputes usually blow up unexpectedly and often as a result of a change of policy or strategies of a trading partner or "sharp" practices of a competitor.

In all cases however they can have enormous financial and reputational consequences for the businesses concerned.

Consequently it is important for companies to be fully aware of how to enforce their rights before the Courts as well as how to safeguard their interests when threatened.

Our considerable experience in this field has made us aware that most businesses are unprepared to tackle these unfamiliar issues and are considerably exposed. With this in mind we have produced this short briefing providing preliminary guidance on the subject together with some attached illustrations as to when private enforcement actions can arise and the nature of damages and other remedies potentially available.

Recent Developments

Historically in the United Kingdom few actions for private damages and/ or interim relief have been brought, despite the fact that the enforcement of competition law (by means of such actions) has long been available as an effective alternative to regulatory enforcement. It is, however, now widely accepted that there will be a significant increase in the level of civil actions in the national courts as a consequence of a number of key factors including:

  • Public Policy: As a matter of public policy the EU Commission sees private litigation as a key complement to the public enforcement of the competition rules. As part of a general policy of devolving down enforcement to national level, the EU Commission published a Green Paper setting out its proposals for the promotion of private enforcement of the competition rules. More recently in April and November 2007 respectively the Office of Fair Trading published its own consultation and recommendation documents on how consumers and businesses can gain redress for breaches of competition law. The EU Commission is due to publish a White Paper in the near future to further encourage private enforcement.

  • The Enterprise Act: Private actions are strongly encouraged by the Enterprise Act 2002. Under this Act once there has been a finding of infringement by the national or EU regulator, this finding will be binding on a court in a civil claim for damages;

  • Case Law: The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Courage -v- Crehan has confirmed the availability of the remedy of damages in the national courts for breach of the competition rules as well as extending potential liability to co-contractors in certain given situations.

  • The Modernisation Legislation: Under the overhaul of the competition regulations, implemented primarily in the UK through Council Regulation 1/2003, it is no longer possible for companies to voluntarily notify the EU Commission of agreements that might have anti-competitive effects. One consequence of this is that businesses are stripped of a line of defence, thus opening the door to more private litigation in the national courts.

In essence, victims and perpetrators of anti-competitive behaviour are witnessing the development of a set of coherent rules on private competition actions for damages. This, coupled with a general increasing awareness of seeking damages and/or interim relief through the courts, is likely to result in a marked increase in the number of actions brought. Accordingly, businesses can no longer afford to ignore the opportunities and threats created by these developments.

Some Advantage of Private Enforcement

Depending upon the circumstances of the individual case a business may consider that the most appropriate course of action is to seek to use regulatory findings to establish liability as a stepping-stone to a claim for compensation in the civil courts. For example, a company on the receiving end of anti-competitive conduct, such as a margin squeeze by a dominant player, may consider submitting a complaint to the regulator to be followed on by litigation in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (the "CAT") to recover damages based on a finding of infringement by the regulator.

Alternatively, however, in certain circumstances standalone litigation may be viewed as more appropriate and/or advantageous. For example, some of the benefits that private enforcement of competition law can offer include the following:

  • Interim Relief: Interim injunctions are not available from the CAT. Accordingly, where urgent action is required to force a discontinuance of the anti-competitive behaviour, an application to the court for interim relief might be the most appropriate remedy;

  • Disclosure: The CAT has no power to order pre-action disclosure or disclosure by third parties.

  • Costs: Courts can order the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's legal costs. An undertaking's legal costs, which may be substantial, are not recoverable in the case of a complaint to a public authority.

In general terms the private enforcement of the competition rules has direct benefits for the functioning of the market as it has a strong additional deterrent effect over and above the sanctions that can currently be imposed via public enforcement and it promotes a culture of competition.

To illustrate both the types of situation in which private enforcement of the competition rules might be appropriate and the nature of damages potentially recoverable and/or other remedies potentially available, we have set out some examples on separate sheets of unilateral anti-competitive behaviour adopted by dominant companies in a particular market or as a result of restrictive agreements between competing companies more commonly known as "cartels".

Economic / Forensic Issues

In Article 82 or Chapter II abuse of dominance cases, proof of infringement is very likely to be heavily dependant upon sophisticated economic analysis and expert evidence. For example, given the importance of market share in assessing dominance, the definition of the relevant product, service and geographical market is a fundamental element in any analysis. Similarly, a key principle underlying the quantification of damages is the identification of a 'but for' scenario (which would have occurred in the absence of the defendant's actions) and a quantification of the resulting harm to the plaintiff. This analysis is generally the preserve of experts with the appropriate skills in economics, financial accounting and valuation etc.

In Article 81 or Chapter I anti-competitive agreement cases, proof of the infringement is likely to be focused on the existence of and adherence to the anti-competitive agreement itself. In most cases actions under this heading will tend to be follow on actions relying on the existence of a regulatory finding of anti-competitive behaviour.

Tying Or Bundling Diminishes Consumer Choice And Is A Device Which Dominant Companies Can Use To Foreclose New Entrants And Existing Competitors From Downstream Or Neighbouring Markets.

Case One: Tying

Scenario

Company A is a computer manufacturer. Company B is in the business of providing hardware maintenance. Due to company A's policy of tying the provision of hardware maintenance to the provision of software maintenance Company B contends that it is suffering loss as a substantial amount of business is foreclosed to it. In essence, Company B is prevented from maintaining any hardware supplied by Company A and is restricted in its ability to tender for hardware maintenance for those customers requiring one person to maintain numerous different vendors' equipment at one site.

Advice To Company B

We would advise Company B that the practice whereby Company A ties the provision of its hardware maintenances services to the provision of its software maintenance services could constitute a breach of Article 82 and/or Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Subject to the proviso of being able to establish that Company A is dominant and has abused that dominance, Company B might be able to recover its losses by bringing a private action for damages through the UK Courts.

The categories of loss for which Company B could be seeking to recover damages through any such private enforcement action would include:

  • Losses resulting from any termination of pre-existing contracts that can be shown to result from Company A's actions. This will require analysis of before and after customer retention measures in order to identify any abnormal customer losses; as well as an analysis of any variable costs saved as a result of those losses.

  • Losses resulting from a reduction in the level of new business caused by Company A's actions. Similar analysis will be required, using before and after measures of customer acquisition.

Experience has taught us that in a case like this the parties will undoubtedly hold divergent views as to the correct market definition against which dominance is to be assessed. Typical issues include, for example, whether there is both a primary and a secondary market; whether the relevant market is the market for hardware maintenance services for Company A's proprietory hardware only or for hardware maintenance services for hardware generally. Input from experts with the requisite knowledge of the market and the right economic and financial skills is therefore invaluable – both in determining the questions of market definition and dominance, and in making an independent assessment of resulting losses.

Dominant Suppliers That Cut Off Supply To An Existing Customer Or Refuse To Supply A Potential New Entrant Can Have A Highly Damaging Effect On Competition.

Case Two: Refusal To Supply

Scenario

Company A is a publishing company specialising in the provision of business information over the Internet. Company A recently entered into an agreement with a trade association (representing the interests of the IT recruitment industry) pursuant to which Company A was to design, develop and operate an IT recruitment web site on which the trade association members could exclusively advertise their vacancies.

Company B supplies advertising services to the IT recruitment industry, particularly via its website. Company B accepts advertisements from recruitment agencies and posts them on its online job board. Company B has an adopted policy of not accepting advertising from agencies that have their own job boards. In addition, Company B has recently informed IT recruitment agencies that if they advertise on Company A's recruitment website they will not be allowed to advertise on Company B's website.

Advice To Company A

Company B is refusing to supply services to existing customers, because those customers also wish to purchase services from a new competitor. On the proviso that Company B is dominant (possibly in the market for on-line advertising services for IT vacancies in the United Kingdom although the correctness of this market definition would need to be established by economic analysis), its behaviour may well amount to an abuse of Article 82 and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. In essence, Company B's threat to exclude those advertising on Company A's site from its site effectively prevents or restricts potential competitors from entering and/or competing on the relevant market.

Accordingly, we would advise Company A in the first instance to apply to the Court for an injunction ordering Company B to terminate the alleged infringing activity pending trial of the claim. To succeed in its application Company A would have to satisfy the court that there is a serious question to be tried between the parties and that a subsequent award of damages would not be an adequate remedy - for example because Company A could be forced out of the market, damaging both its reputation and its European expansion plans.

This is exactly the type of case in which private enforcement of the competition rules, with the additional injunctive remedies that such an action can offer, can be truly advantageous. In short the granting of injunctive relief can make the difference between a company being forced out of the market and being able to remain in it.

By Their Very Nature Agreements To Fix Prices And Their Trading Conditions Constitute A Very Serious Restriction On Competition

Case Three: Cartel Behaviour

Scenario

Companies A, B, C and D are developers and suppliers of integrated circuits (ICs) to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) which make a range of telecommunications products. The OEMs in turn sell their finished products to telecommunications companies - principally carriers - for onward sale to their end users.

Company E is an OEM, which has had a trading relationship over many years with Company A for the provision of ICs for integration into its products.

Companies E and A agree prices on an annual basis for the supply of products. This year Company A increased its prices by over 10 per cent, much to Company E's surprise. Despite some heated negotiations between the two companies Company A refused to move on price. Concurrent with its negotiations with Company A, Company E approached Companies B, C and D for quotations for ICs of a similar specification and finds their prices similar.

Reluctantly and because no cheaper sources of supply can be found and in view of their existing commercial relationship Company E places an order for ICs with Company A at the higher price demanded. Company E subsequently takes delivery of the ICs from Company A and uses them in the production of its telecommunications products which it sells on to its customers. Company E increases its prices to its customers blaming increased raw material costs for the increase.

Two years later Company E reads in the Press that the EC Commission has commenced an investigation into an alleged cartel in the IC industry involving Companies A, B, C and D. The Commission's investigation concludes with a finding that Companies A, B, C and D engaged in a price fixing cartel for ICs over a number of years which led to an artificial raising of prices. The Commission issued a Decision condemning the companies for serious breaches of Article 81(1) of EC Treaty and imposing substantial fines. None of the companies fined decided to appeal.

Alert to the fact that they have been significantly overcharged for their requirements of ICs, Company E was anxious to obtain compensation.

Advice To Company E

Company E has found that it has paid higher prices for its ICs than it would otherwise have done in a competitive market. The Commission has already condemned Company A for its part in an anti-competitive cartel and Company A has not lodged an appeal.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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