Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2)

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2)

The court found that the evidence, whether considered individually or collectively, did not establish that the bookmakers colluded to boycott Turf TV or to coordinate withdrawal of sponsorship. The parallel behaviour was consistent with independent commercial decisions, and the oral evidence of the bookmaker witnesses was credible. The Counterclaim failed as the requisite standard of proof for collusion was not met.

Parties
Claimant: Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Limited; Claimant: Coral Racing Limited; Claimant: Done Bros (Cash Betting) Limited; Claimant: Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited; Claimant: William Hill Organization Limited; Defendant: Amalgamated Racing Limited; Defendant: Racing UK Limited; Defendant: Alphameric PLC; Defendant: Alphameric Gaming Limited; Defendant: Racecourse Media Services Limited; Defendant: Racecourse Investments Limited; Defendant: The Western Meeting Club Limited; Defendant: Bangor-on-Dee Races Limited; Defendant: The Beverley Race Company Limited; Defendant: Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Limited; Defendant: The Catterick Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant: The Chester Race Company Limited; Defendant: Goodwood Racecourse Limited; Defendant: The Hamilton Park Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant: The Ludlow Race Club Limited; Defendant: Musselburgh Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant: Newbury Racecourse PLC; Defendant: The Pontefract Park Race Company Limited; Defendant: Redcar Racecourse Limited; Defendant: The Bibury Club Limited; Defendant: Thirsk Racecourse Limited; Defendant: Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Limited; Defendant: York Racecourse Limited; Defendant: Nicholas Hugh Tremayne Wrigley; Third Party: Satellite Information Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Competition/antitrust / Judgment on Counterclaim
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Concerted Practices, Collusion, Article 81 EC Treaty, Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998, Boycott, Sponsorship Withdrawal, Market Entry, Parallel Behaviour
Competition Law Commercial Law Concerted Practices Collusion Article 81 EC Treaty Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998 Boycott Sponsorship Withdrawal +2 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Limited

Claimant

Coral Racing Limited

Claimant

Done Bros (Cash Betting) Limited

Claimant

Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited

Claimant

William Hill Organization Limited

Claimant

Amalgamated Racing Limited

Defendant

Racing UK Limited

Defendant

Alphameric PLC

Defendant

Alphameric Gaming Limited

Defendant

Racecourse Media Services Limited

Defendant

Racecourse Investments Limited

Defendant

The Western Meeting Club Limited

Defendant

Bangor-on-Dee Races Limited

Defendant

The Beverley Race Company Limited

Defendant

Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Limited

Defendant

The Catterick Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant

The Chester Race Company Limited

Defendant

Goodwood Racecourse Limited

Defendant

The Hamilton Park Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant

The Ludlow Race Club Limited

Defendant

Musselburgh Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant

Newbury Racecourse PLC

Defendant

The Pontefract Park Race Company Limited

Defendant

Redcar Racecourse Limited

Defendant

The Bibury Club Limited

Defendant

Thirsk Racecourse Limited

Defendant

Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Limited

Defendant

York Racecourse Limited

Defendant

Nicholas Hugh Tremayne Wrigley

Defendant

Satellite Information Services Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Competition/antitrust / Judgment on Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain bookmakers engaged in collusive behaviour contrary to Article 81 EC Treaty and Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998 by boycotting Turf TV and withdrawing sponsorship from racecourses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence, whether considered individually or collectively, did not establish that the bookmakers colluded to boycott Turf TV or to coordinate withdrawal of sponsorship. The parallel behaviour was consistent with independent commercial decisions, and the oral evidence of the bookmaker witnesses was credible. The Counterclaim failed as the requisite standard of proof for collusion was not met.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • The remaining parts of the Counterclaim are dismissed.