Everything Everywhere Ltd v Competition Commission & Ors

Everything Everywhere Ltd v Competition Commission & Ors

The Competition Commission was not legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus if it concluded there was insufficient evidence to support either standard. However, the Commission did not find the evidence insufficient; it made a reasoned determination that allocative efficiency provided no clear answer and upheld Ofcom's choice of pure LRIC. No judicially reviewable error, procedural unfairness, or inconsistency was established.

Parties
Appellant: Everything Everywhere Limited; 1st Respondent: Competition Commission; 2nd Respondent: Office of Communications (Ofcom); 3rd Respondent: Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited; 4th Respondent: British Telecommunications plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Price Control, Judicial Review, Regulatory Decision, Merits Appeal, Statutory Interpretation
Competition Law Telecommunications Law Administrative Law Price Control Judicial Review Regulatory Decision Merits Appeal Statutory Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Everything Everywhere Limited

Appellant

Competition Commission

1st Respondent

Office of Communications (Ofcom)

2nd Respondent

Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited

3rd Respondent

British Telecommunications plc

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Commission was legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus cost standards in the absence of robust evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Commission committed a judicially reviewable error by making a choice despite insufficient evidence
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the Commission's determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Competition Commission was not legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus if it concluded there was insufficient evidence to support either standard. However, the Commission did not find the evidence insufficient; it made a reasoned determination that allocative efficiency provided no clear answer and upheld Ofcom's choice of pure LRIC. No judicially reviewable error, procedural unfairness, or inconsistency was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed