In general, there is much to welcome in the draft Guidelines.  First, it is helpful that the documents issued by the Authorities following the Enterprise Act are being updated to reflect experience and developments.   Secondly, it is valuable that the Authorities have identified common ground on many issues (which ought to ensure consistency between the two bodies) and have articulated the issues on which they intend to take a different approach.

First published in GCP June 2009

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (“the CAT”) gave judgment in the NAPP case, the first ever appeal, which included an appeal on penalty, under the Competition Act 1998 (“the Competition Act”) back in January 2002. In the intervening seven and a half years, the CAT has delivered a number of important judgments which reveal the way in which the CAT will exercise its jurisdiction to review penalties imposed by the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) and other regulators. This article focuses on two particular aspects of this line of case law: the status accorded to the OFT’s Guidance on penalties and the principle of equal treatment, and then considers the implications of the CAT’s approach for parties seeking to appeal penalties.

This case involves the intersection of two very British pastimes; horseracing and betting. There are 60 racecourses in Great Britain and since 1986 it had been lawful for live pictures of horseracing to be shown in Licensed Betting Offices (“LBOs”).

 

Article first published in The Tax Journal, 23rd July 2007.

In Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G UK Ltd & Others v CEC and Case C-284/04 T-Mobile & Others v Austria, judgments of 26 June 2007, the ECJ held that Member States’ auctions of 3G licenses do not constitute an economic activity and so fall outside the scope of the Sixth Directive.  In finding that claims by successful.

Article first published in the Competition Law Journal, Volume 6, Issue 1 2007

Modernisation has recently celebrated its second birthday.  Like proud parents, the European Commission and Council proclaimed its birth with lofty aspirations.  The Modernisation Regulation would ‘disseminate a competition culture within the Community’, create a system in which competition is not

Article first published in The Tax Journal, 21 May 2007

As an advocate I subscribe to the view that anything that hinders my opponent must help my client and vice versa.  Classifying propositions of law as a help or a hindrance is therefore typically my first port of call.  What then of the current vogue for relying upon the propositions of law to be derived from ECJ judgments.

Article first published in The Tax Journal, 5 March 2007

When I started to think about this article, I expected to be able to comment on how long it had taken for any party to an appeal to the Tribunal to rely on EC law.  I would not have been right. It is certainly true that early VAT decisions of the Tribunal, and of the Courts on appeal, approached the interpretation and application of the legislation as a

First Published in Euromoney Competition & Antitrust Review 2007, pages 20 – 21

After many years of debate and dithering the United Kingdom took the bold decision after the election of the Labour Government in 1997, that it was time to align its competitive laws, at least in substantive terms, with those of the EC.

Article first published in Legal Week, 15 February 2007

There should have been gasps of relief in boardrooms across the country last Friday.  Was it confidence, insouciance or ignorance that led to the deafening silence?  Last year the High Court decided that the price of data concerning horse races could only be set at cost of production plus a reasonable margin.

Article first published in The Tax Journal, 29 January 2007

Has there been a sea-change?  In HMRC v Baines & Ernst the Court of Appeal had one of its first opportunities to consider the VAT unjust enrichment defence.  The Court told HMRC that it had adduced no evidence to prove ‘passing on’.  An experienced VAT Tribunal and the High Court had both concluded that the unjust enrichment defence had been proved by HMRC,