Mon - Fri 09:00 - 18.00
Second Floor Goldsmith Building Temple London EC4Y 7BL
Tel: +44 020 7936 3637
Fax: +44 020 7583 2061
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).
Church Court Chambers are delighted to announce its second webinar of the summer, following on from the hugely successful “Jury... more
Maria Karaiskos was instructed in a large scale Violent Disorder case at Luton Crown Court. The defendant she represented was one... more
Chris Johnston successful in the Court of Appeal in appeal against sentence, which highlighted the lack of sentencing guidelines... more
Michael Fullerton, Kevin Molloy and Michael Polak have all dusted the wig and gown off and returned to Crown Court for the first... more
On Friday 29 May 2020 Michael Polak spoke as part of a panel of experts on ‘Huawei’s Role in Mass Surveillance &... more
Church Court Chambers would like to thank all those who attended and took part in our first webinar, “Do you really want to... more
Kevin Molloy was instructed in a Firearms case at Woodgreen Crown Court. The defendant had ordered a blank firing gun and... more
Gregory Wedge of Chambers’ Crime and Regulatory Team, secured a successful appeal against sentence in respect to a £1.5... more
Church Court’s Michael Polak has been instructed to represent illustrator Greta Samuel. Greta published a political image... more
Chambers are hosting their first webinar on the past, present and future of jury trial on 21st May at... more
“Whilst I welcome the statement from the Lord Chancellor on proactive steps to be taken to resume Jury Trials, I wish to... more