UK Competition Law Enforcement during Covid 19 - Collaborating with Competitors in a Global Pandemic
15th April 2020
3PB Pupil Barrister Georgina Dietrich writes about collaborating with competitors in a global pandemic.
UK competition law enforcement is expected to undergo drastic changes due to the implications of Brexit. The transition period started running when the UK exited the EU on 31 January 2020 and is currently scheduled to end on 31 December 2020. EU treaties, free movement rights and EU law principles, including competition rules, continue to apply in the UK until the end of the transition period.
In January 2020 the Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”) and businesses operating in the UK were preparing for anticipated changes around domestic enforcement once the European Commission (the “Commission”) is no longer in the picture. The CMA is expecting an increased number of larger, more complex merger cases and antitrust investigations as well as the enforcement of state aid rules at a national level. A number of commentators anticipate that the CMA will continue to align its approach with the Commission’s response in order to facilitate business beyond UK borders. Others expect a divergence of approaches over time.
Little did anyone know in January that the coronavirus pandemic was about to rear its head, a crisis unprecedented in scale and, unlike the Brexit transition period, without a definitive end date. The conversation on UK competition law enforcement has since shifted from analysing post-Brexit implications to much more existential topics: crisis cartels, rescue mergers and unparalleled levels of state aid.
This short article examines the regulators’ approach (i.e. Commission and CMA) to the practical challenges businesses may face in the area of competition law enforcement during Covid-19, in particular when collaborating with competitors.
Related Articles
-
3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings) specialist commercial and chancery barrister Aaron Mayers (pictured here) has written on the new limits set on section 994 petitions following the case of THG PLC & Ors v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd. Zedra Trust Company claimed that it had been wrongfully excluded from a bonus share issue by THG plc. The key issue in the case was whether the unfair prejudice petition brought by Zedra Trust Company against...
Continue reading -
3PB’s intellectual property barristers Nicole Bollard and Mark Wilden (pictured here) acted for the defendants, Jack Hill Culture Company and its director Shan Lu, in a claim for copyright infringement brought by clothing designer Ivana Basilotta. Ms Basilotta had previously been unsuccessful at trial in a claim for sums allegedly owed as part of a contractual arrangement between her and the Defendants. Ms Basilotta brought a second claim in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC)...
Continue reading -
3PB is delighted to announce that commercial disputes and construction barrister Philip Bambagiotti, who is joint -qualified at the bar in both England and Australia, has been appointed onto the International Dispute Resolution & Risk Management Institute (IDRRMI) Panel of Senior Certified International Arbitrators. Philip Bambagiotti is a top ranked barrister and arbitrator with over 30 years experience. He is well known for his work as counsel and arbitrator in international arbitrations involving disputes over...
Continue reading -
Aaron Mayers (pictured here), specialist commercial barrister at 3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings), analyses the case of Last Bus Ltd v Dawsongroup Bus and Coach Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1297 and considers the application of UCTA 1977. This case revolves around the enforceability of a standard form exclusion clause in a hire purchase agreement. Specifically, it addresses the approach to assessing the reasonableness of such clauses, and the assessment of the parties’ bargaining power, under...
Continue reading
