Everything Everywhere Ltd v Competition Commission & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 154 (06 March 2013)

Everything Everywhere Ltd v Competition Commission & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 154 (06 March 2013)

The Competition Commission was not legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus if evidence was insufficient; however, the Commission did not find the evidence so lacking as to preclude a lawful determination. The Commission properly assessed the available evidence and concluded that allocative efficiency grounds alone did not provide a clear answer, but the statutory objectives were sufficiently met by Ofcom's choice of pure LRIC. No judicially reviewable error, procedural unfairness, or inconsistency was established.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 154
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 From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Price Control Regulation, Judicial Review Standards, Merits Appeals, Regulatory Methodology, Statutory Objectives
Competition Law Telecommunications Law Administrative Law Price Control Regulation Judicial Review Standards Merits Appeals Regulatory Methodology Statutory Objectives

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Competition Commission was legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus cost standards
  2. 2 Whether absence of robust survey evidence precluded a lawful determination
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness or inconsistency occurred in the Commission's determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Competition Commission was not legally bound to choose between LRIC and LRIC plus if evidence was insufficient; however, the Commission did not find the evidence so lacking as to preclude a lawful determination. The Commission properly assessed the available evidence and concluded that allocative efficiency grounds alone did not provide a clear answer, but the statutory objectives were sufficiently met by Ofcom's choice of pure LRIC. No judicially reviewable error, procedural unfairness, or inconsistency was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • EE's appeal is dismissed
  • No remittal to Ofcom