Attheraces Ltd & Anor v The British Horseracing Board Ltd & Anor Rev 2 [2007] EWCA Civ 38 (02 February 2007)

Attheraces Ltd & Anor v The British Horseracing Board Ltd & Anor Rev 2 [2007] EWCA Civ 38 (02 February 2007)

BHB abused its dominant position by imposing excessive and unfair prices for pre-race data, by threatening to refuse supply to an existing customer (ATR) without objective justification, and by engaging in discriminatory pricing. The economic value of the data was to be measured by cost of production plus reasonable profit, and BHB's charges were significantly in excess of this value. There was no objective justification for BHB's conduct, and the refusal to supply and pricing practices constituted abuses under Article 82 EC Treaty and section 18 Competition Act 1998.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 38
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Attheraces Limited; Claimant/respondent: Attheraces (UK) Limited; Defendant/appellant: The British Horseracing Board Limited; Defendant/appellant: BHB Enterprises PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for ATR upheld.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Excessive Pricing, Discriminatory Pricing, Essential Facilities Doctrine, Refusal to Supply, Database Rights, Contractual Supply of Information
Competition Law Commercial Law Intellectual Property Abuse of Dominant Position Excessive Pricing Discriminatory Pricing Essential Facilities Doctrine Refusal to Supply +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attheraces Limited

Claimant/respondent

Attheraces (UK) Limited

Claimant/respondent

The British Horseracing Board Limited

Defendant/appellant

BHB Enterprises PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BHB abused a dominant position by excessive and unfair pricing of pre-race data
  2. 2 Whether BHB's refusal to supply pre-race data to ATR was unreasonable and constituted an abuse
  3. 3 Whether BHB engaged in discriminatory pricing against ATR

Ratio Decidendi

BHB abused its dominant position by imposing excessive and unfair prices for pre-race data, by threatening to refuse supply to an existing customer (ATR) without objective justification, and by engaging in discriminatory pricing. The economic value of the data was to be measured by cost of production plus reasonable profit, and BHB's charges were significantly in excess of this value. There was no objective justification for BHB's conduct, and the refusal to supply and pricing practices constituted abuses under Article 82 EC Treaty and section 18 Competition Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for ATR upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration that BHB abused its dominant position by excessive and unfair pricing, unreasonable refusal to supply, and discriminatory pricing.
  • Injunction restraining BHB from refusing to supply pre-race data to ATR on unreasonable terms.