header-logo header-logo

17 January 2008
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Competition
printer mail-detail

JJB to pay fans over football shirt scam

News

The legal battle between sports chain JJB Sports and Which? about overpriced football shirts has been settled out of court, with the retailer promising to return cash to consumers who were overcharged.

Fans who paid up to £39.99 for certain England and Manchester United football shirts during specific periods in 2000 or 2001 and joined the Which? case against JJB Sports will get £20 each. Those who bought affected shirts but didn’t join the case can claim £10.

JJB was part of a cartel of seven companies fined more than £16m in 2003 for fixing the price of the football shirts. Which? used its powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to launch an action for damages.

Tom Morrison, an associate at Rollits, says JJB was always going to be in a weak position following the earlier finding of anti-competitive behaviour.
“In light of this, it seems that JJB has decided to settle rather than risking a dangerous test case with a potentially worse outcome which may set a precedent for the future.”

The Office of Fair Trading, he says, has indicated that it will now focus on high-profile competition law cases of economic significance and therefore wishes to reduce the pressure on the enforcement system by encouraging similar class actions in the future.

Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Competition
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll