UK: The Cityhook Saga Continues

The OFT´s Prioritisation Criteria Under The Microscope
Last Updated: 16 March 2009
Article by Simon Holmes and Dr. Gordon Christian

Initially published in the March 2009 edition of Competition Law Insight.

Incredible as it may seem, seven years has now elapsed since Cityhook, a company only founded 10 years ago, complained to the OFT that many of its competitors and/or their trade association were guilty of anticompetitive conduct designed to force it out of the market.

The OFT investigated Cityhook's conduct at length (over four years in fact) before closing the case on administrative priority grounds.

After an unsuccessful appeal against the OFT's decision at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Cityhook took its case to the Administrative Court, which has now considered for the first time the scope of the OFT's discretion to close Competition Act investigations.

Cityhook - the story so far

Cityhook complained to the OFT in February 2002 that several of its competitors and/or their trade association UKCPC had illegally entered into a collective boycott of Cityhook.

As the OFT investigation progressed, the case team formed a view that there was sufficient evidence to proceed towards a statement of objections in relation to both a collective boycott of Cityhook and the collective setting of wayleave fees (payable to landowners for access to their land to lay or maintain cables) by the UKCPC and/or its members. Unfortunately for Cityhook, as the case team prepared a draft statement of objections, the OFT's competition enforcement division underwent significant changes. Internal case review panels had been introduced in 2004, and the OFT chairman Philip Collins had announced in 2005 that the OFT's competition enforcement activities would (in future) be prioritised in accordance with six criteria that were published more formally in 2006 and recently declared to apply to the full range of the OFT's activities. After a review of the status of the case team's work on the Cityhook case, two senior OFT officials recommended closure of the case on administrative priority grounds. The case was formally closed in June 2006.

Cityhook appealed against the OFT's case closure decision to the CAT which, after applying its now well-established case law on appealable decisions (ie BetterCare, Freeserve, Aquavitae, Casting Book and Independent Water Company among others), concluded that the OFT's case closure decision was not an appealable decision and therefore Cityhook's appeal was inadmissible.

Administrative Court's Cityhook judgment

Cityhook essentially put forward three arguments as to why the OFT's case closure decision should be overturned.

  • The provisions of the Competition Act do not allow for prioritisation after a section 25 investigation has been initiated.

The first argument that Cityhook put forward was that the OFT's contention that it could continue to apply the prioritisation criteria (and therefore, if appropriate, close a case) even where the case was well progressed was contrary to the structure of the Competition Act. In Cityhook's view, the OFT's discretion to prioritise cases is restricted to the period before the OFT commences a formal section 25 investigation. After that, according to Cityhook, the OFT must proceed to "put its money where its mouth is" and make a decision on whether or not the conduct under investigation breached the Competition Act. That decision would then be challengeable on the merits at the CAT as an appealable decision.

However, the judge – Mr Justice Foskett – held that the OFT could properly take into account administrative priorities up until the point when a statement of objections is issued.

The authors would argue that the judge's decision on this point must be the right one. The capacity of the OFT's competition enforcement division will clearly fluctuate over time as large cases are either dealt with or settled and new major investigations (particularly into hardcore cartel infringements) start. In that context, either to force the OFT to take all section 25 investigations through to a conclusion (with possible delay caused to many other OFT cases) or for the OFT to refuse to initiate section 25 investigations for fear of capacity constraints of a later date seems less appropriate than a continuous, flexible review to ensure that the OFT at any one time deals with those cases that objectively deserve to be prioritised.

  • Certain prioritisation criteria lack a statutory basis.

The OFT had noted in its case closure decision that, when it applied the prioritisation criteria to the Cityhook case, two of the reasons why Cityhook fell short of the required threshold were that the consumer detriment caused by the alleged anticompetitive conduct was not very significant and that the concept of a collective boycott was not a hardcore infringement.

Cityhook maintained during the judicial review proceedings that these two prioritisation criteria had no basis in statute and that therefore the OFT had been wrong to apply them in the present case.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Justice Foskett came to the conclusion that consumer detriment was a factor that the OFT could (and indeed should) take into account when applying prioritisation criteria to a case. He relied primarily on the CFI's Automec judgment and on the article 81(3) guidelines to argue that consumer welfare is a vital consideration in competition policy.

Equally, and rightly in the authors' opinion, the judge concluded that the OFT was, in its prioritisation analyses, entitled to consider both the type of infringement and to set priority areas for enforcement action.

The only slight wrinkle that the authors would point out in this regard is that an excessive use of the "type of infringement" criteria might further skew the OFT's already very focused "object" infringement competition enforcement activities. As an effects-type infringement is clearly more work intensive and less likely to be prioritised by the OFT, there is a risk that complaints alleging an effects-type infringement may not even get past the OFT's new screening unit known as the "Preliminary Investigation Unit" (PIU). As effects-type cases will be very risky and difficult to win if brought to court by companies affected by such conduct, the authors believe that there is some risk that potentially very wide ranging and significant conduct possibly giving rise to an effects-based infringement becomes a lacuna in the UK's competition enforcement landscape. That is clearly not an outcome that either the OFT or consumers would welcome, particularly given that senior OFT officials have recently been at pains to point out that the adverse economic climate should be tackled not by a relapse into protectionism and state aid but by a continuing commitment to effective competition enforcement.

  • OFT's alleged errors of assessment.

Finally, Cityhook alleged that the OFT had made several errors of assessment when considering the evidence gathered during the investigation. Despite considerable sympathy for Cityhook's position, the judge did not find that these errors of assessment were of such gravity as to render the case closure decision Wednesbury unreasonable (that is to say, so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to the same conclusion, as per the famous 1948 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury case ).

Cityhook - the saga continues

The Administrative Court added one final twist to this complex tale. This is because Mr Justice Foskett accepted Cityhook's submissions that the OFT had, so far, failed to fulfil its duties under the Competition Act 1998 (Concurrency) Regulations 2004, in accordance with which Competition Act cases can be transferred between different regulations with concurrent jurisdiction under the Competition Act. As the OFT had argued in its case closure decision that the case was not an OFT priority also because Ofcom had concurrent jurisdiction, the OFT was now, according to the judge, obliged to "take such active step or steps as may be necessary to invite Ofcom to consider agreeing to take over the case". This is a fairly robust test that the judge warned could not be satisfied by a brief exchange of correspondence. Whether Ofcom will take up the complaint will depend on its evaluation of Cityhook's complaint against its own prioritisation criteria and available resources.


This first judgment of the Administrative Court on the scope of the OFT's discretion to prioritise cases (and to close certain cases on administrative priority grounds) is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, the reasonably wide OFT discretion to prioritise cases is confirmed by the Cityhook judgment, and the authors do see merit in the court's position on this point. Cityhook's arguments, if upheld, would have resulted in an OFT decision-making process that would have been hampered by undue formality and inflexible outcomes that could not properly take into account current case workloads.

Having said that, the authors are still concerned that an excessive closing of cases on administrative priority grounds (and a "shut-door" policy for certain types of cases at the PIU stage) will lead to worrying gaps in the UK's competition enforcement landscape (ie where the OFT will not pursue the case and the complainant cannot afford to litigate). Secondly, judicial support for the OFT's wide discretion whether to pursue a case serves as a reminder that anyone bringing a complaint to the OFT should demonstrate clearly why the case meets the OFT's prioritisation criteria and why the OFT should dedicate scarce resources to pursuing it. It is not sufficient to have a good substantive case; it needs to be a case that the OFT considers worth fighting.

Thirdly, on a practical note, it must be said that the changes in the OFT's competition enforcement division in the last few years should (with luck) prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate factual circumstances of the Cityhook case. After all, in Cityhook, a complex and very costly four-year investigation was closed because the goalposts had shifted halfway through the investigation. In contrast, these days the OFT's PIU carefully screens Competition Act complaints against the OFT's prioritisation criteria before a section 25 investigation is launched (if at all). Therefore, it should now be possible for the OFT to apply the prioritisation criteria primarily at the PIU stage rather than to long-running investigations. This should also lessen the risk of the OFT being judicially reviewed on such matters, as the CAT's judgment in Cityhook and the line of appealable decisions case law referred to above should make clear to most complainants that the OFT's refusal to launch a section 25 investigation is very likely to be unchallengeable. This is because it will be seen as the exercise of the OFT's administrative discretion in prioritisation matters and not as an appealable decision.

Finally, the robust line taken by Mr Justice Foskett on the concurrency issue means that companies defending a competition complaint should not only focus on seeking to defend the allegations that may be put to them by the OFT, but also on convincing any other possible regulators with concurrent jurisdiction why they should not take the case either. If one is acting for a complainant, it will be worth bearing in mind whether an OFT complaint should be accompanied by an equivalent complaint to another regulator with concurrent jurisdiction. In Cityhook's case, Ofcom represents the second bite at the cherry (although the outcome of Ofcom's decision on whether to accept the complaint is very unpredictable at the moment).

All things considered, Mr Justice Foskett has largely confirmed the CAT's judgment in the Cityhook case, but his ruling on concurrency means that the company lives to fight another day.

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
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.