Search
On 10 March 2026, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) refused an application by Aramark Limited (“Aramark”) to extend time to challenge a merger decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”). The judgment contains a comprehensive review of the CAT’s power to extend time for the commencement of proceedings, with a particular focus on challenges to merger decisions.
In January 2025, Aramark acquired 90% of the issued share capital of Entier Limited (“Entier”). Aramark and Entier are both engaged in the supply of offshore catering and ancillary facilities management services to customers, including in the UK offshore continental shelf.
The CMA launched a merger inquiry into Aramark’s acquisition of Entier. Following a phase 2 investigation, the CMA notified Aramark of its final report (the “Decision”) on 15 January 2026. The CMA concluded that: (i) the transaction has resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market; and (ii) only a sale of Entier to an approved buyer would effectively address the competition concerns.
On Friday 13 February 2026, Aramark filed a notice of application for review of the CMA’s Decision. The CAT Registry took the view that the deadline for the notice of application had expired at 5pm on 12 February 2026 and refused to register Aramark’s notice of application. Aramark applied retrospectively for an extension of time to file the notice of application. Rule 25(3) of the CAT Rules provides that such an extension can only be made in exceptional circumstances.
The CAT (James Wolffe KC) found that there was no reasonable room for debate that the deadline in this case was Thursday 12 February 2026. There were no such exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of that deadline. The CAT emphasised the compelling public interest in the speedy resolution of disputes in relation to merger decisions and the importance of meeting time limits for initiating proceedings before the CAT. The CAT found that Aramark missed the deadline because of a good faith misinterpretation of the rules by its solicitors and a decision to depart from an internal plan to file on 12 February 2026. These were not exceptional circumstances justifying an extension. The CAT accepted the substantial prejudice which Aramark sustains by reason of losing the opportunity to obtain a review of the Decision but considered that these consequences did not justify characterising the circumstances as exceptional. It was in the nature of time limits that failure to comply may be of great significance to the party concerned and that Aramark would be unable to challenge the CMA’s remedy.
The CAT noted that, under the surrogacy principle, parties to civil litigation need to live with the consequences of errors made by their lawyers. The circumstances of the present case did not justify departure from that general rule.
The CAT’s judgment is available here.
Ronit Kreisberger KC and Charlie Coverman appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Rob Williams KC and James Bourke appeared for the CMA.