UK: Apparent Bias

Last Updated: 2 March 2010
Article by Simon Holmes and Dr. Gordon Christian

The Competition Commission has a tough time over the BAA case

Just before Christmas, the Competition Commission found itself at the receiving end of the third Competition Appeal Tribunal judgment in the same year in which the CAT overturned or censured certain CC decisions. In both the groceries and the payment protection insurance judgments, in which Tesco (groceries) and Barclays Bank (payment protection insurance) had challenged certain aspects of the remedies packages, the CAT agreed with the claimants in relation to some of these aspects and required the CC to reconsider the relevant issues.

In the latest market investigation remedies challenge to come before the CAT, the CAT has accepted BAA Ltd's (BAA) challenge to the CC's findings in its BAA airports market investigation on the basis that one CC inquiry member was affected by "apparent bias".

This article sets out the factual background before analysing the key points to come out of the CAT's judgment.

Background: OFT investigation

There have been longstanding concerns that BAA's ownership of several airports in the south-east of England (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton) and in Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen) was bad for competition and had adverse effects on consumers. At the end of June 2006, the OFT launched a market study into UK airports, arguing that the decision to proceed to a market study reflected the importance of airports to consumers and businesses within the UK.

Background: CC market investigation

The result of the OFT's market study was that the OFT referred the market for the supply of airport services by BAA in the UK to the CC for a market investigation in March 2007. By the time the CC published its emerging thinking in April 2008, BAA's common ownership of the three main London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) as well as the two main Scottish airports (Edinburgh and Glasgow) had already been identified as a key feature of the market that gave rise to adverse effects on competition. At that time, the stage was already set for structural remedies as a possible outcome, and this was confirmed in the CC's final report published in March 2009.

In order to address the issues related to BAA's common ownership of London's Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, the CC required BAA to divest Gatwick and Stansted airports to separate purchasers within two years. In fact, following the CC's provisional findings, BAA had already announced its intention to sell Gatwick, and the sale to Global Infrastructure Partners was completed recently, following European Commission merger control approval. The Competition Commission also decided that BAA should sell either Edinburgh or Glasgow airport.

BAA's CAT challenge

On 18 May 2009, BAA filed with the CAT its appeal against the CC's final report and the divestment remedy. In this regard, BAA relied on two grounds. First, it alleged that the CC's report was flawed as one CC inquiry member was affected by apparent bias. Second, it challenged the divestment remedy on proportionality grounds, essentially similar to those which had been used successfully against the CC by Tesco and Barclays Bank in the groceries and payment protection insurance cases.

Apparent bias

The CC has a panel of members who are all highly experienced and well-regarded experts in their respective fields. The CC makes a selection from this panel and appoints a certain number (usually, between three and six) of such members to conduct and direct the inquiries that the CC is asked to undertake.

The BAA inquiry was led by a team of six CC members, including Professor Peter Moizer. It was Professor Moizer's participation in the market investigation that, in BAA's opinion, gave rise to apparent bias concerns. This was because Professor Moizer had, for a significant period of time, advised the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which is governed by the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester. The crux of the apparent bias allegation lay in the fact that these same local authorities also owned 100% of the shares in Manchester Airport Group, a key BAA competitor. In BAA's opinion, therefore, Professor Moizer was involved in determining whether BAA should be broken up on the one hand while, at the same time, advising a competing company that stood to benefit from such a possible BAA break-up imposed by the CC.

CC policy

Since July 2002, the CC has had a stringent policy in place to prevent conflicts of interest from arising, a copy of which can be found on the CC's website. The guidance requires members to disclose to the CC's chief executive any interests which may give rise to a conflict, and it goes on to say that such an interest may result in a member not being appointed for the purpose of a particular investigation. The guidance is also clear on why the conflicts policy is very important for the CC: "We are not only concerned with the possibility of one of our decisions being challenged in court on the grounds of conflict of interest, embarrassing as such a case would be to the Commission and the member involved. The [CC] must be seen to be above suspicion."

CC disclosure

So what did the CC disclose to BAA about Professor Moizer's (indirect) link to the Manchester Airport Group? At the start of the market investigation, the CC sent an email (the 2007 email) to BAA in which it noted that Professor Moizer had given strategic advice to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund on how to structure investments. The CC followed this up with a more formal letter (the 2007 letter), in which it reiterated its previous statement, and noted that Professor Moizer had no influence on (and did not even know) which investments the Greater Manchester Pension Fund in fact made. The CC did note, however, that the Greater Manchester Pension Fund investments may include some whose value could be affected by the outcome of the inquiry – a very indirect and vague reference to the link between the Greater Manchester Pension Fund and the Manchester Airport Group.

Professor Moizer's involvement

However, as counsel for BAA explained in detail to the CAT during the hearing, there had been a conflict issue concerning Professor Moizer and an airports investigation on a previous occasion. Every five years, the CC is involved in reviews concerning regulated airports, relating in particular to the maximum level of charges that the regulated airports can charge airlines and other airport users. In 2002, the CC was considering two quinquennial reviews in parallel, one related to Manchester Airport and the other related to London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Professor Moizer was a member of the Manchester Airport inquiry, but not of the other one. However, as there were certain common issues to the reviews, a joint meeting of both inquiry groups was suggested, and at that stage Professor Moizer notified the CC of the potential conflict and took no part in the joint meetings. In addition, several interested parties (but not BAA) were notified about Professor Moizer's link to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund and the Manchester Airport Group in a letter which was significantly more detailed than the 2007 email and letter to BAA referred to above.

Another key point that was relevant to the CAT's considerations on the bias point was that Manchester Airport Group had informed the CC at a hearing in October 2007 that it would be interested in acquiring BAA airports if a suitable opportunity arose.

Issues came to a head in January 2009, when Professor Moizer first became aware of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund's participation in a consortium interested in acquiring Gatwick (which BAA had put on the market after the CC's provisional findings). Given that a conflict of interest could no longer be ruled out, the CC took the decision that Professor Moizer should stand down, which he duly did – but only a matter of weeks before the CC's final report was published.

Legal test

According to the relevant legal test, the CAT had to decide whether a "fair-minded and reasonable" observer would conclude, on the facts of the case, that there was a real possibility that Professor Moizer was biased in favour of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund and/or Manchester Airport Group. "With the greatest reluctance" – and emphasising that the CAT considered this to be a case of apparent (rather than actual) bias – the CAT concluded that a fair-minded and reasonable observer would so conclude. At the same time, the CAT dismissed the CC's arguments (1) that BAA should have done further background checks on Professor Moizer after the CC's disclosure in 2007; (2) that BAA had waived its rights to allege bias as the 2002 disclosure was in the public domain and BAA had not acted on it; and (3) that even if Professor Moizer was affected by bias, he was only one of six members and could therefore not have had decisive influence on the results of the CC's inquiry.

The CAT's dilemma

As the CAT dismissed BAA's substantive arguments concerning the alleged lack of proportionality of the divestment remedy, the CAT found itself in difficult territory concerning the possible effects of its judgment. Unlike the groceries and payment protection insurance judgments, in which Tesco and Barclays Bank respectively succeeded with some of their substantive arguments (and it was therefore relatively straightforward to direct the CC to reconsider the relevant substantive issues), BAA had "only" succeeded on a procedural point. However, this risked the CAT having to overturn the entire report, and the CAT noted that it had been conscious throughout of the implications of this finding on a CC report prepared "at great effort and expense to all concerned". The CAT's judgment also left up in the air the ongoing airport disposal process concerning Stansted and Edinburgh or Glasgow. At BAA's suggestion during the hearing, the CAT has ordered that it will hear further arguments on the matter of appropriate relief unless BAA and the CC can agree a way forward.

At this point, it appears that talks between BAA and the CC are ongoing, and it will be interesting to see how long the CAT gives the parties before intervening to make a final decision on appropriate relief.


It is clear that as the severity of the CC's decisions increase – particularly in relation to outcomes in market investigations which have significant repercussions for both market participants and consumers generally – the CC's handling of all aspects of such cases must be beyond reproach. Justice must not only be done but be clearly seen to be done.

Furthermore, some commentators have gone as far as to label 2009 as an annus horribilis for the CC - a year in which it suffered three high-profile defeats at the CAT.

Against this background, the CC will no doubt be considering putting additional procedures in place to ensure that the significant benefits of its market investigations are not jeopardised by failings on the procedural side and are less vulnerable to challenge.

As always, such procedures will probably come at a price, with more complex procedures, greater pressures on time and, no doubt, ever longer reports.

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