P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

The defences under sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 were summarily dismissed because the Tenant failed to plead or establish primary facts showing an appreciable effect on competition or abuse of a dominant position. The Landlord was granted an injunction to enforce the beer tie and an inquiry as to damages, with permission to plead the implied term at the damages stage, but no summary declaration as to the implication of the term was made.

Parties
Claimant: P & S Amusements Limited; First Defendant: Valley House Leisure Limited; Second Defendant: Peter Alfred Valentine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Liability Trial, Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Defences under sections 2 and 18 Competition Act 1998 summarily dismissed; injunction granted; inquiry as to damages ordered; permission to plead implied term at damages stage; no declaration as to implied term granted.
Legal Topics
Beer Tie, Exclusive Purchasing Obligations, Implied Terms, Abuse of Dominant Position, Summary Judgment, Injunctions
Contract Law Competition Law Beer Tie Exclusive Purchasing Obligations Implied Terms Abuse of Dominant Position Summary Judgment Injunctions

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

Parties

P & S Amusements Limited

Claimant

Valley House Leisure Limited

First Defendant

Peter Alfred Valentine

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Liability Trial, Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the beer tie and associated arrangements breach sections 2 or 18 of the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend pleadings to allege an implied term preventing the tenant from negotiating discounts with nominated suppliers
  3. 3 Whether a declaration should be granted as to the implication of such a term

Ratio Decidendi

The defences under sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 were summarily dismissed because the Tenant failed to plead or establish primary facts showing an appreciable effect on competition or abuse of a dominant position. The Landlord was granted an injunction to enforce the beer tie and an inquiry as to damages, with permission to plead the implied term at the damages stage, but no summary declaration as to the implication of the term was made.

Court Disposition

Defences under sections 2 and 18 Competition Act 1998 summarily dismissed; injunction granted; inquiry as to damages ordered; permission to plead implied term at damages stage; no declaration as to implied term granted.

Orders

  • Defences under sections 2 and 18 Competition Act 1998 struck out.
  • Injunction granted restraining Tenant from purchasing designated beers except from nominated supplier.