Seafood Holdings Ltd v My Fish Company Ltd & Ors

Seafood Holdings Ltd v My Fish Company Ltd & Ors

The pleaded facts and available evidence do not establish a real prospect that Seafood Holdings abused a dominant position or entered into anti-competitive agreements in breach of the Competition Act 1998, as Seafood's market share is below the threshold for dominance and the alleged agreements are block exempt; thus, summary judgment is granted for the claimant on the competition law elements of the counterclaim.

Parties
Claimant: Seafood Holdings Limited; Defendant: My Fish Company Limited; Defendant: Gary Apps; Defendant: Benjamin Philip Coupe; Defendant: Mark Ormiston; Defendant: Mark Hadland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial/competition Law Claim and Counterclaim / Summary Judgment Application on Counterclaim (competition Law Claims)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant on the competition law claims in the counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Anti Competitive Agreements, Summary Judgment, Economic Torts, Restrictive Covenants, Block Exemption, Market Definition
Competition Law Commercial Law Employment Law Abuse of Dominant Position Anti Competitive Agreements Summary Judgment Economic Torts Restrictive Covenants +2 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seafood Holdings Limited

Claimant

My Fish Company Limited

Defendant

Gary Apps

Defendant

Benjamin Philip Coupe

Defendant

Mark Ormiston

Defendant

Mark Hadland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/competition Law Claim and Counterclaim / Summary Judgment Application on Counterclaim (competition Law Claims)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim based on abuse of dominant position under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 discloses a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim based on anti-competitive agreements under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 discloses a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the alleged conduct by Seafood Holdings constitutes an unlawful act for the purposes of the economic tort

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded facts and available evidence do not establish a real prospect that Seafood Holdings abused a dominant position or entered into anti-competitive agreements in breach of the Competition Act 1998, as Seafood's market share is below the threshold for dominance and the alleged agreements are block exempt; thus, summary judgment is granted for the claimant on the competition law elements of the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant on the competition law claims in the counterclaim.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 69(a) and 69(b) of the counterclaim (competition law claims) struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.
  • Counterclaim to proceed without competition law claims as an ordinary commercial dispute.