Mon - Fri 09:00 - 18.00
Central Court 25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A 1AL
Tel: +44 020 7936 3637
DX 458 London Chancery Lane
Chambers provides an out of hours service. If you call Chambers main number you will be diverted to the clerk on call who will be able to deal with your enquiry.
Deputy Senior ClerkemailEmail
First Junior ClerkemailEmail
Credit and Revenue Control ManageremailEmail
In 2017 the Competition & Markets Authority (“CMA”) found that Ping, a manufacturer of golf clubs, had infringed the prohibition in Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In that regard, Ping had entered into agreements with two UK based retailers containing clauses prohibiting those retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. Upon considering the same, the CMA found that Ping had been operating an online sales ban, which was not objectively justified. The CMA imposed a financial penalty of £1.45 million on Ping and directed that it brings the online sales ban to an end, and must not impose the same or equivalent terms on other retailers. Ping duly appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”). In a judgment dated 7 September 2018 ( CAT 13) the CAT upheld the finding that the internet sale policy adopted by Ping amounted to a restriction of competition. The CAT however reduced the penalty imposed to £1.25 million. It should be noted that the CMA had accepted that Ping was pursuing a genuine commercial aim of promoting in-store custom fitting in respect to golf clubs, but found that it could have achieved this through less restrictive means.
On the 21st January 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down Judgement in an appeal from the CAT by Ping (available here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/13.html). The Court rejected Ping’s appeal, and provided a helpful analysis of the European Jurisprudence in this area, assessing competing arguments as to the implications and interpretation of previous case law. The case is being described as a “landmark case” which sends an important signal that attempts by manufacturers to impose absolute bans on selling their products online are unlawful. The maintenance of a prestigious image may, in some situations, justify the restriction of competition arising from the use of a selective distribution system, in particular in relation to luxury goods. Accordingly, companies may be able to prevent those goods from being sold online by distributors. However, crucially, one must examine the economic and legal context of the operation of any such intended restriction, before deciding whether it is an object restriction or not and thus permitted.
As the Chancellor of the High Court observed at para 131 of the Judgement “There are many ways in which Ping’s objective can be substantially fulfilled without imposing a blanket ban on internet sales”. Thus, it appears that the ultimate question a company must ask itself is: “is there another way, other than a prohibition clause, in which we can achieve our objective”. That question should be asked and answered as a matter of urgency, or any restrictive commercial practice, even if arguably well intended, could lead to significant fines and lengthy litigation.
Lewis Power QC & Colin Witcher: Business Crime and Regulatory Group, Church Court Chambers.
(this case comment does not constitute legal advice).
Our infrastructure provider, CTS, has suffered a service outage due to a cyber-incident, which has impacted a number of our... more
Yasin Patel comments in City A.M. on the legal implications of Everton FC’s breach of financial rules, and the legal... more
Robert Newcombe comments in City A.M. on the likelihood of further debanking claims following Nigel Farage’s announcement... more
Robert Newcombe has commented on the recent ruling in cum-ex tax case, Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and Tax... more
R v M, Luton Crown Court, Michael Mather-Lees KC, instructed by Attiq Malik of Liberty Law” defended in a case where it was... more
On 26 October 2023, Michael Polak successfully defended a strike-out application which was made by the Respondent, the... more
Maria Karaiskos KC prosecutes the alleged murder/manslaughter of a mother by her son whilst he was under the influence of illicit... more
Islam Khan successfully persuades Crown Court at Peterborough to dismiss charges of serious violence (GBH with intent) and... more
Church Court Chambers international barrister Michael Polak spoke at the China Forum in Washington DC on Wednesday 18 October... more
The Charity, Advocate celebrate barrister Yasin Patel’s pro bono work, efforts and dedication. An Advocate champion, he is... more
Court of Appeal: R -v- Hand Court of Appeal Quash a 4.5-year sentence to 2 year 3 months. LJ Edis states Mr Khan was succinct... more
In March 2023, a young man was stabbed to the neck whilst in the Colliseum nightclub in Walsall. Nobody witnessed the stabbing.... more