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.
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).
A young boy has been acquitted of Murder and Manslaughter by a Jury after a 36-day trial at the Old Bailey. Represented by Sarah... more
As the furlough scheme starts to wind down from the start of this month, investigations in fraud under the scheme have started to... more
George Hepburne-Scott won another case in the High Court on 22 June 2021. The Appellant in the case of FT v Hungary was... more
In the case of PB v Spain, the Appellant had argued no less than nine grounds of appeal. This was a fascinating case: There... more
We are immensely proud to announce that Guy Williamson BEM QPM of chambers has been appointed as the legal advisor to the British... more
Shaun Esprit of Chambers Crime and Regulatory Team successfully secured the unanimous acquittal of a defendant who stood trial... more
On the 29th April, George secured permission to appeal in an extradition matter which was granted by Chamberlain J at a renewal... more
Colin Witcher of Church Court Chambers was invited to join forces with Claire Anderson of ABV Solicitors to present an open and... more
On 29 April 2021, George Hepburne-Scott was granted permission to appeal an extradition order make by the Deputy Chief Magistrate... more
Statement from Head of Chambers Kerim Fuad QC: “Joanna Toch is not a Member of, nor associated with, Church Court... more
George Hepburne-Scott claims a stunning victory in an Extradition case today, 1st June 2021, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.... more
An International Cricketer who was accused of being one of “Cricket’s Match Fixers” has been cleared of alleged spot-fixing... more