Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors
The Court held that the arrangements between the RUK racecourses and AMRAC did not infringe Article 81(1) EC by object or effect. The collective and closed negotiations, and the fixing of prices, were objectively necessary and proportionate to enable AMRAC to enter a market previously monopolised by SIS/BAGS. The racecourses were not in competition with each other for the sale of LBO media rights at the relevant time. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
- Parties
- Appellant: Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd; Appellant: Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd; Appellant: William Hill Organization Ltd; Respondent: Amalgamated Racing Ltd; Respondent: Racing UK Ltd; Respondent: Alphameric PLC; Respondent: Alphameric Gaming Ltd; Respondent: Racecourse Media Services Ltd; Respondent: Racecourse Investments Ltd; Respondent: The Western Meeting Club Ltd; Respondent: Bangor-on-Dee Races Ltd; Respondent: The Beverley Race Co Ltd; Respondent: Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Ltd; Respondent: The Catterick Racecourse Co Ltd; Respondent: The Chester Race Co Ltd; Respondent: Goodwood Racecourse Ltd; Respondent: The Hamilton Park Racecourse Co Ltd; Respondent: The Ludlow Race Club Ltd; Respondent: Musselburgh Racecourse Co Ltd; Respondent: Newbury Racecourse PLC; Respondent: The Pontefract Park Race Co Ltd; Respondent: Redcar Racecourse Ltd; Respondent: The Bibury Club Ltd; Respondent: Thirsk Racecourse Ltd; Respondent: Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Ltd; Respondent: York Racecourse Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Article 81 EC Treaty, Collective Selling, Joint Ventures, Media Rights, Price Fixing, Ancillary Restraints, Sports Broadcasting
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd
Appellant
Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd
Appellant
William Hill Organization Ltd
Appellant
Amalgamated Racing Ltd
Respondent
Racing UK Ltd
Respondent
Alphameric PLC
Respondent
Alphameric Gaming Ltd
Respondent
Racecourse Media Services Ltd
Respondent
Racecourse Investments Ltd
Respondent
The Western Meeting Club Ltd
Respondent
Bangor-on-Dee Races Ltd
Respondent
The Beverley Race Co Ltd
Respondent
Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Ltd
Respondent
The Catterick Racecourse Co Ltd
Respondent
The Chester Race Co Ltd
Respondent
Goodwood Racecourse Ltd
Respondent
The Hamilton Park Racecourse Co Ltd
Respondent
The Ludlow Race Club Ltd
Respondent
Musselburgh Racecourse Co Ltd
Respondent
Newbury Racecourse PLC
Respondent
The Pontefract Park Race Co Ltd
Respondent
Redcar Racecourse Ltd
Respondent
The Bibury Club Ltd
Respondent
Thirsk Racecourse Ltd
Respondent
Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Ltd
Respondent
York Racecourse Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arrangements between the RUK racecourses and AMRAC infringed Article 81(1) EC by object or effect
- 2 Whether the collective negotiation, closed selling, and price-fixing were anti-competitive
- 3 Whether the arrangements were objectively necessary to enable market entry
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the arrangements between the RUK racecourses and AMRAC did not infringe Article 81(1) EC by object or effect. The collective and closed negotiations, and the fixing of prices, were objectively necessary and proportionate to enable AMRAC to enter a market previously monopolised by SIS/BAGS. The racecourses were not in competition with each other for the sale of LBO media rights at the relevant time. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment