Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors

Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors

The arrangements challenged by the Claimants did not infringe Article 81(1) EC Treaty or section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. The collective negotiation and exclusive licensing were commercially necessary to enable market entry and competition, did not have the object or effect of restricting competition, and did not constitute price fixing. No appreciable adverse effect on competition was established. The claim fails and the agreements are not void.

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; Third Party: Satellite Information Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Competition / Final Judgment on Liability (competition Issues)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; contingent counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Licensing, Collective Selling, Market Foreclosure, Price Fixing, Ancillary Restraints, Horizontal Agreements, Vertical Agreements, Article 81 EC Treaty, Competition Act 1998
Competition Law Commercial Law Exclusive Licensing Collective Selling Market Foreclosure Price Fixing Ancillary Restraints Horizontal Agreements +3 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Satellite Information Services Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Competition / Final Judgment on Liability (competition Issues)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether collective exclusive licensing of LBO media rights to AMRAC infringed Article 81 EC Treaty and Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the arrangements constituted restriction of competition by object or effect
  3. 3 Whether exclusive, collective, and closed selling foreclosed the market or fixed prices

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements challenged by the Claimants did not infringe Article 81(1) EC Treaty or section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. The collective negotiation and exclusive licensing were commercially necessary to enable market entry and competition, did not have the object or effect of restricting competition, and did not constitute price fixing. No appreciable adverse effect on competition was established. The claim fails and the agreements are not void.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; contingent counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants’ claim against Defendants dismissed.
  • Contingent counterclaim by Defendants against BAGS and SIS dismissed.