Attheraces Ltd & Anor v The British Horseracing Board Ltd & Anor Rev 2

Attheraces Ltd & Anor v The British Horseracing Board Ltd & Anor Rev 2

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in finding that BHB's charges were excessive, unfair, or discriminatory by applying a cost+ test as the sole measure of economic value. Economic value must also consider the value to the purchaser and the market context. There was no sufficient evidence that BHB's pricing or conduct distorted competition or placed ATR at a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, BHB did not abuse its dominant position under Article 82 EC or section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment overturned.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Excessive Pricing, Discriminatory Pricing, Refusal to Supply, Essential Facilities Doctrine
Competition Law Commercial Law Abuse of Dominant Position Excessive Pricing Discriminatory Pricing Refusal to Supply Essential Facilities Doctrine

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 14 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BHB abused its dominant position by excessive, unfair or discriminatory pricing of pre-race data supplied to ATR
  2. 2 Whether BHB's refusal to supply pre-race data to ATR on certain terms was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of dominance
  3. 3 Whether the pricing mechanism applied by BHB was discriminatory compared to other market participants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in finding that BHB's charges were excessive, unfair, or discriminatory by applying a cost+ test as the sole measure of economic value. Economic value must also consider the value to the purchaser and the market context. There was no sufficient evidence that BHB's pricing or conduct distorted competition or placed ATR at a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, BHB did not abuse its dominant position under Article 82 EC or section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment overturned.

Orders

  • Declaration that BHB did not abuse its dominant position by excessive, unfair, or discriminatory pricing or by unreasonable refusal to supply pre-race data to ATR.
  • No injunction or relief granted to ATR.