Skip to main content

Competition Disputes

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.

Related items

Related services

A guide to the litigation process

21 March 2019

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.

A guide to the litigation process including guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme

21 March 2019

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.

Supreme Court decision on professional negligence and loss of chance: Perry v Raleys Solicitors

21 February 2019

The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal of a firm of solicitors defending a professional negligence claim and helpfully reiterated well-established principles about the approach the court must take when considering the issue of causation in loss of chance cases. The decision clarifies what has to be proved in cases where the question for the court depends on what: (a) the claimant would have done (which the claimant must prove to the usual standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’); compared with (b) what others would have done (which are better assessed on a loss of chance basis).

English courts and overseas defendants: jurisdiction challenges and the “three limb” test

06 February 2019

When a dispute involves a foreign party or events that took place in another jurisdiction, questions often arise as to where the dispute should be determined. The forum in which the dispute is determined can make a great deal of difference. It is therefore important for potential litigants to know where they can commence proceedings and whether they can resist claims brought against them in the “wrong” jurisdiction. In a recent case the English Court of Appeal considered the test that will apply when deciding whether to permit a claimant to sue a “foreign” defendant in this jurisdiction.

Dispute Resolution Update - January 2019

16 January 2019

Welcome to our January 2019 Dispute Resolution Update which brings you news and our views on law and practice for dispute resolution. We’ve included articles on domestic disputes and international disputes, including summaries of recent cases. We have also included client guides on key aspects of dispute resolution.

Court of Appeal finds no litigation privilege in internal emails discussing commercial settlement of dispute

09 January 2019

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by West Ham football club in its application to inspect certain emails sent internally amongst board members of E20 Stadium LLP (“E20”) and between E20’s board members and stakeholders, in respect of which E20 asserted litigation privilege. The emails were created with the dominant purpose of discussing the commercial settlement of E20’s dispute with West Ham over the club’s rights to use the London Olympic Stadium when litigation was in contemplation. The Court held that litigation privilege does not extend to documents concerned with the settlement or avoidance of litigation where the documents neither: (a) seek advice or information for the purpose of conducting litigation; nor (b) reveal the nature of such advice or information.

Litigation privilege and the ‘dominant purpose’ test: ENRC decision applied

07 January 2019

Did last year’s landmark Court of Appeal decision in Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”) alter the application of the ‘dominant purpose’ test for litigation privilege where a document is brought into existence for multiple purposes, one of which is for use in litigation? The answer is ‘no’, according to a recent decision by the High Court. The Court confirmed the well-established principle that, for a claim to litigation privilege to succeed where a document is created for more than one purpose, litigation must be shown to be the dominant purpose on the facts.

Back To Top