Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution

Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution

The court held that the allegations in paragraphs 21(1)-(2) and (4) of the Particulars of Claim were unsustainable as a matter of law and should be struck out, as they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Article 101 TFEU. However, the remaining allegations, particularly regarding the Kitemark licence agreements and the abuse of dominance under Article 102, raised triable issues that could not be dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The question of whether BSI derived economic advantage from the alleged conduct required further factual investigation and could not be resolved summarily.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SEL-Imperial Limited; Defendant/applicant: The British Standards Institution
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (competition Law) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application partially allowed; paragraphs 21(1)-(2) and (4) struck out; application otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU, Abuse of Dominance, Agreements Restricting Competition, Standardisation Agreements, Vertical Agreements
Competition Law Commercial Law Article 101 TFEU Article 102 TFEU Abuse of Dominance Agreements Restricting Competition Standardisation Agreements Vertical Agreements

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SEL-Imperial Limited

Claimant/respondent

The British Standards Institution

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (competition Law) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds under Article 101 and 102 TFEU
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation and implementation of PAS 125 by BSI constitutes an agreement or abuse under competition law
  3. 3 Whether BSI's conduct amounts to a decision by an association of undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the allegations in paragraphs 21(1)-(2) and (4) of the Particulars of Claim were unsustainable as a matter of law and should be struck out, as they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Article 101 TFEU. However, the remaining allegations, particularly regarding the Kitemark licence agreements and the abuse of dominance under Article 102, raised triable issues that could not be dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The question of whether BSI derived economic advantage from the alleged conduct required further factual investigation and could not be resolved summarily.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; paragraphs 21(1)-(2) and (4) struck out; application otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 21(1)-(2) and (4) of the Particulars of Claim are struck out.
  • The application by BSI to strike out or summarily dismiss the remainder of the claim is dismissed.