Competition law is a complex but important area of law. The fines that can be levied by competition authorities can be extremely high and private litigation relating to infringements of competition law are becoming increasingly common.
We advise on a wide range of commercial disputes and regulatory investigations relating to EU and UK competition law. This includes advising on:
- commercial disputes involving alleged infringements of Article 101 (prohibition on anti-competitive agreements) and Article 102 (abuse of a dominant position) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, and the equivalent provisions under UK law
- mergers and working with the CMA
- ‘follow-on’ and ‘standalone’ damages actions in respect of infringement decisions
- regulatory investigations by the Competition & Markets Authority and European Commission, including cartel investigations and investigations in relation to alleged anticompetitive agreements in distribution agreements and alleged resale price maintenance
We are also able to attend dawn raids held by competition authorities. If you are subject to a dawn raid and need assistance, please contact one of the key contacts listed.
A guide to the litigation process15 August 2017
If you are involved in a dispute you need to know: what options there are for resolving the dispute; what litigation involves; the steps from the start of proceedings to trial; what parties to proceedings have to do; the fundamentals of court procedure; how to use legal advisers efficiently and cost effectively; and what happens after judgment.
Service of a claim form on an agent - was it valid?22 June 2017
In a recent case the High Court considered as a preliminary issue whether a claimant had validly served a claim form on what they considered was the agent of the claimant. The rules of service require that the defendant must be served at the place within the jurisdiction where it conducts business, or where it carries on its activities and which has a real connection with the claim. Therefore the question here was whether the agent’s office was a place at which the defendant conducted its business, or where it carried on its activities?
Competition watchdog turns the spotlight on to eCommerce15 June 2017
Oliver Fairhurst has written an article for Essential Retail which takes a look at the European Commission’s report on competition in eCommerce.
Marathon Asset misses the jackpot again12 April 2017
After being awarded only £2 in nominal damages in its breach of confidence case, Marathon Asset has been heavily penalised on costs after failing to accept the defendants’ Part 36 offer.
Expert Witnesses16 March 2017
This guide provides a general introduction to the use of experts in court proceedings. The rules governing expert evidence are found in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 35, the Court Guides and the Guidance for Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims published by the Civil Justice Council. This guidance will highlight the main points you need to know, consider issues often encountered and offer some practical tips.
Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim14 February 2017
A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.
Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?08 February 2017
Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.
There's something under my bed...19 January 2017
Three companies that supply drawer parts to bed and other furniture retailers have admitted breaching competition law by sharing commercially sensitive information, agreeing not to undercut each other and sharing out their customers. One of the companies avoided paying a fine under the CMA’s leniency policy, but the other two companies have agreed to pay fines totalling £2.8 million.