header-logo header-logo

24 September 2009
Issue: 7386 / Categories: Legal News , Competition
printer mail-detail

Price-fixing plot

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued fines to 103 construction firms after they were found to have colluded with competitors to fix the price of building contracts.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued fines to 103 construction firms after they were found to have colluded with competitors to fix the price of building contracts.

The OFT investigation into the activities of building firms under the Competition Act 2006 found that firms had been involved in rigging 199 tenders between 2000 and 2006 through the practice of “cover pricing”.

That activity involves one or more bidders in the tender process receiving artificially high prices from a competitor. These bids are then submitted, not with the intention of winning the bid but rather to distort the true picture of competition.

The OFT imposed a total of £129.5m in fines. Eighty-six of the 103 firms involved admitted their involvement prior to the announcement and received reductions of their penalties of up to 65%.

The investigation involved some of the most well-known construction firms in the UK. The investigation, which focused primarily on the East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside regions, resulted in a £17.9m fine for Kier Group plc. Interserve was fined £11.6m while 11 further companies were fined more than £5m each.

Stephen Ratcliffe, director of the UK Contractors Group, said that the fines could not have come at a worse time for the construction industry and warned that firms may find it difficult to absorb the fines.

“Everybody knows—including the OFT—that cover pricing was widespread in the industry in the past. It is perverse and unfair to impose such disproportionate penalties on a small number of contractors selected by geographical sampling,” he said.

Ratcliffe added that the infringements that the OFT investigated were historic and “do not reflect practices in today’s market”.

Issue: 7386 / Categories: Legal News , Competition
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Ward Hadaway partner becomes bicentennial president following regional merger

Devonshires—four promotions

Devonshires—four promotions

Firm promotes four senior associates to partner in annual round

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Co-heads of dispute resolution practice appointed alongside partner promotions

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll