Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution [2010] EWHC 854 (Ch) (23 April 2010)

Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution [2010] EWHC 854 (Ch) (23 April 2010)

The claim survives in part: the allegations that there was a multilateral agreement to delegate interpretation of PAS 125 to BSI and that individual Kitemark licence agreements may engage Article 101(1) are arguable and should proceed to trial. The allegations based on 'association of undertakings' and mere parallel implementation are unsustainable and struck out. The abuse of dominance claim under Article 102 is sufficiently pleaded to proceed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 854 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: SEL-Imperial Limited; Defendant/applicant: The British Standards Institution
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment (competition Law Claim) / High Court (chancery Division) Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU, Competition Act 1998, Standardisation Agreements, Abuse of Dominance, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Competition Law Commercial Law Article 101 TFEU Article 102 TFEU Competition Act 1998 Standardisation Agreements Abuse of Dominance Summary Judgment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SEL-Imperial Limited

Claimant/respondent

The British Standards Institution

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment (competition Law Claim) / High Court (chancery Division) Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds under Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU and equivalent UK law
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts amount to an agreement, decision, or concerted practice under Article 101(1)
  3. 3 Whether BSI's conduct constitutes abuse of dominance under Article 102

Ratio Decidendi

The claim survives in part: the allegations that there was a multilateral agreement to delegate interpretation of PAS 125 to BSI and that individual Kitemark licence agreements may engage Article 101(1) are arguable and should proceed to trial. The allegations based on 'association of undertakings' and mere parallel implementation are unsustainable and struck out. The abuse of dominance claim under Article 102 is sufficiently pleaded to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Allegations based on 'association of undertakings' and parallel implementation struck out
  • Claim otherwise proceeds to trial