header-logo header-logo

10 August 2012
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Case law , Competition
printer mail-detail

Competition

Interclass Holdings Ltd and another v Office of Fair Trading [2012] EWCA Civ 1056, [2012] All ER (D) 358 (Jul)

The correct approach to the assessment of penalty by the competition appeal tribunal was to proceed in stages, beginning with an initial assessment for each infringement having regard to its seriousness.

However, when considering whether that figure should be increased in order to give effect to the policy objective of deterrence, two factors came into play.

  • The first was whether the amount of the step 1 penalty would act as a sufficient deterrent for the particular undertaking on which it was imposed.
  • The second was whether it would be sufficient to deter others operating in the same field by bringing home to them that such conduct was illegal and would be effectively punished.

Although at step 1 the tribunal was calculating the penalty for each infringement, it was impossible at step 3 not to have some regard to the overall and cumulative level of penalty imposed on the undertaking when considering whether step 1 figures should be increased.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll