Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 750 (28 July 2009)

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 750 (28 July 2009)

The arrangements between the RUK racecourses and AMRAC did not infringe Article 81(1) EC Treaty as they did not have the object or effect of restricting competition. The object of the arrangements was to enable market entry and competition in a previously monopsonistic market, not to restrict competition. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 750
Parties
Claimant Appellant: Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd; Claimant Appellant: Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd; Claimant Appellant: William Hill Organization Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Amalgamated Racing Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Racing UK Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Alphameric PLC; Defendant Respondent: Alphameric Gaming Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Racecourse Media Services Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Racecourse Investments Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Western Meeting Club Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Bangor-on-Dee Races Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Beverley Race Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Catterick Racecourse Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Chester Race Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Goodwood Racecourse Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Hamilton Park Racecourse Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Ludlow Race Club Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Musselburgh Racecourse Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Newbury Racecourse PLC; Defendant Respondent: The Pontefract Park Race Co Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Redcar Racecourse Ltd; Defendant Respondent: The Bibury Club Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Thirsk Racecourse Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Ltd; Defendant Respondent: York Racecourse Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 81 EC Treaty, Anti Competitive Agreements, Collective Negotiation, Media Rights, Sports Broadcasting, Market Entry, Price Fixing, Concerted Practices
Competition Law European Union Law Commercial Law Article 81 EC Treaty Anti Competitive Agreements Collective Negotiation Media Rights Sports Broadcasting +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd

Claimant Appellant

Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd

Claimant Appellant

William Hill Organization Ltd

Claimant Appellant

Amalgamated Racing Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Racing UK Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Alphameric PLC

Defendant Respondent

Alphameric Gaming Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Racecourse Media Services Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Racecourse Investments Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Western Meeting Club Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Bangor-on-Dee Races Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Beverley Race Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Catterick Racecourse Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Chester Race Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Goodwood Racecourse Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Hamilton Park Racecourse Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Ludlow Race Club Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Musselburgh Racecourse Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Newbury Racecourse PLC

Defendant Respondent

The Pontefract Park Race Co Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Redcar Racecourse Ltd

Defendant Respondent

The Bibury Club Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Thirsk Racecourse Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Ltd

Defendant Respondent

York Racecourse Ltd

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangements for collective negotiation and exclusive licensing of LBO media rights to AMRAC by RUK racecourses infringed Article 81(1) EC Treaty as anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices
  2. 2 Whether the object or effect of the arrangements was to restrict competition
  3. 3 Whether the racecourses were competitors in the relevant market for LBO media rights

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements between the RUK racecourses and AMRAC did not infringe Article 81(1) EC Treaty as they did not have the object or effect of restricting competition. The object of the arrangements was to enable market entry and competition in a previously monopsonistic market, not to restrict competition. The racecourses were not competitors for the sale of LBO media rights, as their rights were not substitutable. The arrangements were objectively necessary to establish a viable competitor to SIS/BAGS. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants/respondents.