Competition Commission v BAA Ltd & Anor
Apparent bias did not exist before 2 December 2008 as Professor Moizer's relationship was solely with the Fund and not with MAG or the local authorities; after 2 December 2008, apparent bias existed but did not contaminate the Panel's final decision, and BAA did not waive its right to object.
- Parties
- Appellant: Competition Commission; Respondent: BAA Limited; Intervener: Ryanair Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Competition Commission's decision restored.
- Legal Topics
- Apparent Bias, Waiver, Contamination of Tribunal, Enterprise Act 2002, Market Investigation, Divestiture
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Competition Commission
Appellant
BAA Limited
Respondent
Ryanair Ltd
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Professor Moizer's connection to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund constituted apparent bias in the Competition Commission's market investigation.
- 2 Whether BAA waived its right to object to apparent bias.
- 3 Whether apparent bias contaminated the Panel's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
Apparent bias did not exist before 2 December 2008 as Professor Moizer's relationship was solely with the Fund and not with MAG or the local authorities; after 2 December 2008, apparent bias existed but did not contaminate the Panel's final decision, and BAA did not waive its right to object.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; Competition Commission's decision restored.
Orders
- The appeals are allowed.
- The decision of the Competition Commission is restored.
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