Chester City Council & Anor v Arriva Plc & Ors [2007] EWHC 1373 (Ch) (15 June 2007)

Chester City Council & Anor v Arriva Plc & Ors [2007] EWHC 1373 (Ch) (15 June 2007)

The claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Arriva held a dominant position in the relevant Chester bus market at the material time. Without establishing dominance, there could be no abuse under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998. Even if Arriva had been dominant, the evidence did not support a finding that its conduct was predatory or intended to eliminate CCT as a competitor. The claimants were not entitled to the relief sought.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1373 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Chester City Council; Claimant: Chester City Transport Limited; Defendant: Arriva plc; Defendant: Arriva Cymru Limited; Defendant: Arriva North West Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Claim (abuse of Dominant Position) / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Predatory Pricing, Market Dominance, Public Transport Regulation, Sale of Public Assets
Competition Law Commercial Law Transport Law Abuse of Dominant Position Predatory Pricing Market Dominance Public Transport Regulation Sale of Public Assets

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chester City Council

Claimant

Chester City Transport Limited

Claimant

Arriva plc

Defendant

Arriva Cymru Limited

Defendant

Arriva North West Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Claim (abuse of Dominant Position) / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Arriva held a dominant position in the relevant bus market in Chester
  2. 2 Whether Arriva's conduct (route registrations and intended operations) constituted a threatened abuse of dominance under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether Arriva's actions were predatory and anti-competitive

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Arriva held a dominant position in the relevant Chester bus market at the material time. Without establishing dominance, there could be no abuse under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998. Even if Arriva had been dominant, the evidence did not support a finding that its conduct was predatory or intended to eliminate CCT as a competitor. The claimants were not entitled to the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted against Arriva
  • No declarations or damages awarded to the claimants