header-logo header-logo

Extraterritorial powers for the CMA?

15 March 2024 / Philip Gardner , Abbie Melvin
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Features , International , Competition , Jurisdiction , Fraud
printer mail-detail
163900
Can the CMA compel overseas companies to provide information? Philip Gardner & Abbie Melvin explore the recent case law
  • Covers case law on the Competition and Markets Authority’s powers to compel information from overseas companies under s 26, Competition Act 1998.
  • The Court of Appeal recently held the CMA has authority to compel responses from companies with no territorial connection to the UK.
  • Competition lawyers are waiting to hear if the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

In January, the Court of Appeal allowed the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA’s) appeal against a decision that had denied it the ability to compel, by way of notice under s 26 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998, ‘the Act’), responses to information requests from companies with no territorial connection to the UK, despite having UK-incorporated subsidiaries, in Competition and Markets Authority v Rex on the application of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft [2024] EWCA Civ 1506.

Given the apparent similarities to the decision in R (on the application of

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll