header-logo header-logo

Competition

29 April 2010
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Vodafone Ltd and others v British Telecommunications plc and another [2010] EWCA Civ 391, [2010] All ER (D) 113 (Apr)

Section 195(5) of the Communications Act 2003 referred to the power that the decision-maker would “otherwise have”. It could not sensibly be read as referring to the power that the decision-maker “would otherwise have had” at the time of the original decision.

The power under s 45 to set conditions in the first place was indisputably a power to set them with prospective, not retrospective, effect. The purpose of the conditions was to regulate the future behaviour of undertakings with significant market power in markets where there was a lack of effective competition. That was made clear both by the EU Directives that the 2003 Act implemented, and by the terms of the 2003 Act itself. The power under s 45(1) of the 2003 Act was to set conditions binding the persons to whom they were applied, and the evident intention was to bind them in respect of their future behaviour.

An appeal was not rendered ineffective by

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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll