High Court Dismisses Anti-Competitive Claims in Phones 4U v EE Case, Refuses Appeal

Introduction

In the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, the case of PHONES 4U LIMITED (In Administration) v EE LIMITED dealt with several key topics of competition law. This article provides an analysis of the legal principles applied within the case, connecting them to the parts of the summary that discuss pertinent caselaw. The analysis assists legal professionals in understanding the intricate legal reasoning behind the court’s decision to dismiss the claims against all defendants and refuse the claimant’s application for permission to appeal.

Key Facts

The claimant, Phones 4U Limited (in Administration), alleged that the defendants, major mobile network operators (MNOs), had engaged in anti-competitive practices contravening Article 101(1) TFEU and the Chapter I prohibition under the Competition Act 1998. A central aspect of the case was whether there was a concerted practice that infringed the competition law, particularly following a meeting between the CEOs of O2 and EE. The ruling also addresses the issue of interest rates on costs and the permission to appeal the case’s judgment.

Legal Principles

Concerted Practices and the Anic Presumption

One of the fundamental legal principles discussed in this case is the concept of a concerted practice which infringes Article 101(1) TFEU. The case law clearly articulates that such infringement involves three elements: (i) two or more undertakings concerting together, (ii) conduct on the market pursuant to those collusive practices, and (iii) a relationship of cause and effect between the two. The Anic presumption holds that if an undertaking participated in a concerted action and remained active on the market, there is a presumption that the concertation may have influenced the undertaking’s market conduct.

Rebuttal of the Anic Presumption

The case demonstrates that the Anic presumption is rebuttable. The burden shifts to the undertaking to show that the concerted action did not influence its conduct on the market. The ruling also identifies that the presumption does not apply to the undertaking disclosing its confidential information if the recipient can rebut the presumption that such information influenced its market conduct.

Assessment of Evidence

The ruling highlights the importance of assessing evidence, including the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of contemporaneous documents. The judge’s discretion in considering inferences from missing documents and the inherent probabilities based on the facts presented is critical in determining the case’s outcome.

Interest on Costs

The judgment addresses the issue of awarding interest on costs and determines the relevant interest rates for pre-judgment and post-judgment periods, emphasizing that different rules may apply for costs incurred in foreign currencies.

Permission to Appeal

The case underscores the criteria for granting permission to appeal, including whether there is a real prospect of success or any other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

Outcomes

The outcome of the case was the dismissal of the claims against all defendants. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was denied, as the judge found no grounds with a real prospect of success nor any compelling reason for an appeal. Additionally, the decision addressed the appropriate rates of interest to be applied to the costs of the Second and Third Defendants, which were paid in euros.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of PHONES 4U LIMITED (In Administration) v EE LIMITED provides a significant insight into the legal reasoning about concerted practices and the robust framework for evaluating evidence in competition law disputes. The court’s application of established principles, particularly related to concerted practices and the assessment of evidence, is instructive for legal professionals practicing in this area of law. The clarification regarding interest rates for costs incurred in foreign currency and the criteria for granting permission to appeal further underscores the case’s importance. This ruling stands as a meticulous example of the judiciary’s ability to navigate complex legal and factual scenarios within the sphere of competition law.