Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch) (06 November 2008)

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch) (06 November 2008)

The evidence presented, whether considered individually or collectively, does not establish to the requisite standard that the bookmakers engaged in an unlawful agreement or concerted practice to boycott Turf TV or to withdraw sponsorship from racecourses. The fragments of evidence relied upon by the Defendants are insufficient to prove collusion, and the parallel conduct can be explained by legitimate commercial motives and industry hostility to Turf TV, not by unlawful coordination.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Limited; Claimant: Coral Racing Limited; Claimant: Done Bros (Cash Betting) Limited; Claimant: Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited; Claimant: William Hill Organization Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Amalgamated Racing Limited; Defendant: Racing UK Limited; Defendant: Alphameric PLC; Defendant: Alphameric Gaming Limited; Defendant: Racecourse Media Services Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Racecourse Investments Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Western Meeting Club Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Bangor-on-Dee Races Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Beverley Race Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Catterick Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Chester Race Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Goodwood Racecourse Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Hamilton Park Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Ludlow Race Club Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Musselburgh Racecourse Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Newbury Racecourse PLC; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Pontefract Park Race Company Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Redcar Racecourse Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: The Bibury Club Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Thirsk Racecourse Limited; Defendant/counterclaimant: Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Limited; Defendant: York Racecourse Limited; Counterclaimant: Nicholas Hugh Tremayne Wrigley; Third Party: Satellite Information Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Claim and Counterclaim / Post Trial Judgment on Remaining Counterclaims
Outcome
Counterclaims dismissed
Legal Topics
Concerted Practices, Article 81 EC Treaty, Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998, Collusion, Boycott, Market Restriction, Sponsorship Withdrawal
Competition Law European Union Law Commercial Law Concerted Practices Article 81 EC Treaty Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998 Collusion Boycott +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Limited

Claimant

Coral Racing Limited

Claimant

Done Bros (Cash Betting) Limited

Claimant

Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited

Claimant

William Hill Organization Limited

Claimant

Amalgamated Racing Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Racing UK Limited

Defendant

Alphameric PLC

Defendant

Alphameric Gaming Limited

Defendant

Racecourse Media Services Limited

Defendant

Racecourse Investments Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Western Meeting Club Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Bangor-on-Dee Races Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Beverley Race Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Catterick Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Chester Race Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Goodwood Racecourse Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Hamilton Park Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Ludlow Race Club Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Musselburgh Racecourse Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Newbury Racecourse PLC

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Pontefract Park Race Company Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Redcar Racecourse Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

The Bibury Club Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Thirsk Racecourse Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

Wetherby Steeplechase Committee Limited

Defendant/counterclaimant

York Racecourse Limited

Defendant

Nicholas Hugh Tremayne Wrigley

Counterclaimant

Satellite Information Services Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Claim and Counterclaim / Post Trial Judgment on Remaining Counterclaims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Coral, Ladbrokes, William Hill and BetFred engaged in an unlawful concerted practice to boycott Turf TV contrary to Article 81 EC Treaty and Section 2(1) Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether Coral, Ladbrokes and William Hill engaged in an unlawful concerted practice to withdraw sponsorship from racecourses licensing rights to AMRAC

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence presented, whether considered individually or collectively, does not establish to the requisite standard that the bookmakers engaged in an unlawful agreement or concerted practice to boycott Turf TV or to withdraw sponsorship from racecourses. The fragments of evidence relied upon by the Defendants are insufficient to prove collusion, and the parallel conduct can be explained by legitimate commercial motives and industry hostility to Turf TV, not by unlawful coordination.

Court Disposition

Counterclaims dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration that Ladbrokes, William Hill or BetFred were party to an unlawful agreement or concerted practice to boycott Turf TV.
  • No injunction restraining Ladbrokes or William Hill regarding sponsorship of racecourses.