header-logo header-logo

29 January 2010
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

BSkyB is loser in spat over ITV

Commission’s recommendation to reduce shareholding upheld

The Court of Appeal has dismissed BSkyB’s legal challenge to the Competition Commission’s findings over its share in ITV but upheld the Commission’s conclusion on media plurality.

The Competition Commission found BSkyB’s acquisition of 17.9% of ITV’s issued share capital in 2006 would result in an expected “lessening of competition” and recommended it reduce its holding to below 7.5%. This would satisfy the so-called “media plurality” issue, by which there should be sufficient numbers of people with control of media enterprises to guard against dominance by one person.

BSkyB’s share offer had acted as a “spoiler” on an earlier bid for ITV by Virgin Media, at a lower share price. Virgin’s offer was worth about £1.22 per share while BSkyB offered £1.35.

In BSkyB v Virgin (British Sky Broadcasting Group plc v Competition Commission and others; Virgin Media Inc v Competition Commission and others) [2010] EWCA Civ 2, [2010] All ER (D) 130 (Jan), Lord Justice Lloyd upheld the Commission’s findings on curbing BSkyB’s shares holdings.
As regards dominance in the media, Lloyd LJ said: “what was required [to satisfy the media plurality issue] was not just an exercise of counting heads, and that it was proper and necessary to have regard to the actual degree of control exercised by one enterprise over another.”

Later in his judgment, he said: “when it comes to assessing the plurality of the aggregate number of relevant controllers and to considering the sufficiency of that plurality, the Commission may, and should, take into account the actual extent of the control exercised and exercisable over a relevant enterprise by another, whether it is a case of deemed control resulting from material influence under section 26 or rather one of actual common ownership or control.”

 

Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll