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).
Lewis represented the Defendant, Koci Selamaj, who pleaded guilty to the murder of primary school teacher, Sabina Nessa. The... more
On 4 May 2022, judgment was handed down in the case of Lucian Florin Badea v Romanian Judicial Authority EWHC 1025... more
Church Court Chambers are pleased to announce the appointment of Michael Mather-Lees QC as Head of Chambers with effect from... more
On 6 April 2022, George’s client was discharged from extradition proceedings by a district judge at Westminster Magistrates’... more
Yasin Patel will represent a leading International Athlete at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) proceedings in... more
Mr Fuad QC represented Donovan Miller, in a highly sensitive case, where it was alleged that in March 2021 he murdered... more
Lewis Power was acquitted on all counts in this Lincoln murder trial in which 2 members of the Romany Travelling community had... more
Zayd Ahmed, having considered the Crowns case, drafted a detailed basis of plea for a client charged with wounding with intent.... more
THAILAND V N.R. – Successfully defeated Thai request for the extradition of British business man for alleged global... more
In a sensitive and complex case Michael Mather-Lees QC and Colin Witcher of Chambers’ Crime and Regulatory Team carefully... more
Michael Polak wins the “2021 IBA Outstanding Young Lawyer Award” for his commitment to defending human rights across... more
Yasin Patel has been instructed as counsel in the sale of a leading Professional Football Club in the UK. Yasin is to represent... more