header-logo header-logo

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

Competition

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll